The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 WILLIAM M. JONES, Case No. 23-cv-02143-JD
4 Petitioner,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
8 v.
9 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,
10 Respondent.
11
12 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges the denial by
5 13 || the Board of Parole Hearings of his request to advance his next parole hearing. Venue for a
14 || habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C.
3 15 § 2241(d). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it
a 16 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See
3 17 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner was
S 18 || convicted in Alameda County which is in this district. But the Board of Parole Hearings denial
19 || occurred at Calipatria State Prison, where petitioner is still incarcerated. That facility is in
20 || Imperial County, in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d).
21 Consequently, the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
22 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); Habeas L.R. 2254-3.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 Dated: June 14, 2023
25
26
JAMES TO
27 United St#tes District Judge
28