# Hicks v. Board of Parole Hearings

> District Court, N.D. California · October 21, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073346

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** October 21, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073346

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that a 1 challenge to a parole decision “challenges the manner in which his sentence was 2 executed”

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 MICHAEL J. HICKS, Case No. 22-06060 NC (PR)

12 Petitioner,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
13 v.

14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS,
15
Respondent.
16

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, has filed a
18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”).
19 Petitioner challenges his parole determination. See id. at 9 (arguing that Petitioner should
20 have been given “elder parole consideration” in his August 2021 parole hearing).
21 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the
22 district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). But if the petition challenges the manner
23 in which a sentence is being executed, as Petitioner’s does, the district of confinement is
24 the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2) (stating that a petition should be
25 heard in the district of confinement if it challenges the manner in which the sentence is
26 carried out); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a
1 challenge to a parole decision “challenges the manner in which his sentence was
2 executed”).
3 Here, Petitioner is housed, and the challenged parole decision was made, in
4 Sacramento County. See Pet. at 1. Sacramento County lies within the Eastern District of
5 California, and so venue is proper in the Eastern District of California.
6 Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
7 the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk shall terminate all
8 pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Eastern District of California.
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 DATED: October 21, 2022
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
11
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10073346. Public record. Not legal advice.