Opinion

(HC) Ogle v. Pollard

Court
District Court, S.D. California
Filed
Jun 18, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.1%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CORKEY DENNIS OGLE, No. 2:20-cv-1108 CKD P

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER

14 UNKNOWN,

15 Respondent.

16

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This

19 court will not rule on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

20 Petitioner was convicted in Butte County (ECF No. 4 at 1) and is incarcerated at R.J.

21 Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County, which lies in the Southern District of

22 California, 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), courts in both the district of

23 conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for

24 habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. However, as a general rule, “[t]he proper forum to

25 challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.” Dunne v.

26 Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Since petitioner challenges the parole board’s denial

27 of parole, he is challenging the execution of his sentence.

28 In the interest of justice, this court may transfer this action “to any other district or

1 | division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the reasons set forth

2 | above, the most appropriate forum for the instant action is the district where petitioner is

3 | confined. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States

4 | District Court for the Southern District of California.

5 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and

7 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of

8 | California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Dated: June 18, 2020 Ci ide A. fe

10 CAROLYN K.DELANEY.

11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

13 13:ogle1108.108d

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.