Jones v. Montgomery
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James McHall Jones (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition filed by a state prisoner challenging the denial of an advanced parole hearing. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California because the petitioner is incarcerated in that district, which is the preferable forum for execution-of-sentence claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Consequently, the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that for habeas petitions directed at the execution of a sentence (such as parole), the district of confinement is the preferable forum. Since the petitioner is incarcerated in Imperial County, which is in the Southern District of California, the transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and local rules. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the legal standard for venue in habeas cases involving the execution of a sentence. It cites the relevant statute (28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)), the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Dunne v. Henman), and the local rule. The factual findings regarding the location of the petitioner's confinement (Imperial County, S.D. Cal.) support the conclusion that the Southern District of California is the preferable forum. The reasoning is concise and legally sound.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
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