Frelimo v. BHP Members
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-00282
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Frelimo v. Lynch, Judge Rogers transferred a state prisoner’s parole challenge to California’s Eastern District without deciding whether parole was improperly denied.
Oba Lee Frelimo’s parole challenge was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. Jeff Lynch was named as the respondent, but the order did not decide the merits of the dispute.
What happened
Oba Lee Frelimo v. Jeff Lynch concerned Oba Lee Frelimo’s challenge to a parole decision. Frelimo, a state prisoner representing himself, said he was illegally denied release after a December 15, 2020 youth-offender hearing.
The Northern District of California explained that challenges to how a sentence is carried out, including parole challenges, are generally heard where the prisoner is confined. Frelimo was incarcerated at California State Prison–Sacramento, which is in the Eastern District of California.
The court transferred the petition to the Eastern District of California in the interests of justice; it did not decide whether Frelimo was entitled to release. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also stated that Frelimo must submit the required fee-waiver application to the Eastern District if he wished to continue the case.
The detailed version
- Frelimo v. BHP Members · No. 4:21-cv-00282
- Yvonne Rogers
- Jan. 29, 2021
Background
Oba Lee Frelimo, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a request for federal review of allegedly unlawful custody. He challenged the most recent decision from his Board of Parole Hearing, identified as a December 15, 2020 “Youth Offender hearing,” and alleged that he had been illegally denied release from prison. The opinion states that he had not filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Transfer analysis
The court explained that when a state has multiple federal judicial districts, a state prisoner’s habeas petition may generally be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. The court may transfer the petition to the other district in the interests of justice. It further explained that challenges to the execution of a sentence—such as parole or time-credit claims—are preferably heard in the district where the prisoner is confined.
Frelimo was incarcerated at California State Prison–Sacramento in Represa, California, which lies within the Eastern District of California. Because his petition challenged the execution of his sentence, the court ordered the petition transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b).
Disposition
The Northern District of California transferred the petition to the Eastern District of California. The order did not decide whether Frelimo was illegally denied parole or otherwise resolve the substance of his challenge. The court stated that, if Frelimo wished to pursue the action, he had to complete the fee-waiver application required by the Eastern District and mail it there. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.