King v. U.S.P. Victorville
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-05173
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
King v. U.S.P. Victorville was transferred to California’s Central District because Judge Tigar found it better suited to review the sentence’s execution.
Darrell King’s habeas petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California, and the Northern District case was closed.
What happened
In Darrell King v. U.S.P. Victorville, Darrell King, an inmate at U.S. Penitentiary Victorville, filed a self-represented petition challenging a prison disciplinary finding.
The court said habeas cases may be heard in the district where a person is confined or convicted, but the confinement district is preferable when the challenge concerns how a sentence is carried out. Because King’s petition concerned the execution of his sentence and the prison is in the Central District of California, the court transferred the petition there and directed the clerk to close the Northern District case.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the transfer under the federal venue statute and the district’s habeas rules; the opinion did not decide the disciplinary challenge’s merits.
The detailed version
- King v. U.S.P. Victorville · No. 4:24-cv-05173
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 13, 2024
Background
Darrell King, an inmate housed at United States Penitentiary Victorville in Victorville, California, filed a self-represented habeas petition seeking review of a prison disciplinary finding that occurred there.
Venue Analysis
The court stated that venue in a habeas action may be proper either in the district of confinement or in the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It also stated that the district of confinement is the preferable forum for reviewing the execution of a sentence. Because King’s challenge concerned the execution of his sentence and USP Victorville is located in the Central District of California, the court determined that the Central District was the appropriate forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the petition to the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the applicable habeas rules. It directed the clerk to close the Northern District of California case. The opinion did not reach the merits of King’s challenge to the disciplinary finding.
Judge
Judge Jon S. Tigar entered the order on September 13, 2024.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.