(HC) Ogle v. Pollard
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se state prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the denial of parole in the Eastern District of California, where he was convicted, but is incarcerated in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California as the proper forum for challenging the execution of his sentence.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the habeas corpus action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence (parole denial) rather than the validity of the conviction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is concurrent in the district of conviction and confinement, but the Ninth Circuit has established that the district of confinement is the proper forum for execution challenges. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the district of confinement, which is the legally appropriate outcome. |
No ruling on the application to proceed in forma pauperis“This court will not rule on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court It is procedurally appropriate for a court to defer ruling on an IFP application when it is transferring the case to another district, as the receiving court will typically handle the IFP status upon receipt of the transferred file. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the distinction between challenging the validity of a conviction (district of conviction) and the execution of a sentence (district of confinement). It cites the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (Dunne) and statutory authority (§ 2241(d), § 1404(a)) to support the transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional issue.
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