Jones v. Montgomery
- James Donato
- 3:23-cv-02143
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Jones v. Montgomery, Judge Donato transferred Jones’s petition challenging parole to the Southern District of California because he was confined there.
William M. Jones, whose petition will proceed in the Southern District of California rather than the Northern District of California.
What happened
Jones v. Montgomery is a petition by a state prisoner who was representing himself. He challenged the denial of his request to have his next parole hearing held sooner.
The court explained that a petition about how a sentence is carried out may be heard where the person was convicted or where the person is confined. Because the parole decision occurred at the prison where Jones remained confined, the court said the Southern District of California was the preferable venue.
Judge Donato transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The order addressed where the case should proceed, not whether Jones was entitled to a sooner parole hearing.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Montgomery · No. 3:23-cv-02143
- James Donato
- June 14, 2023
Background
William M. Jones, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging the Board of Parole Hearings’ denial of his request to advance his next parole hearing.
Venue Analysis
The court explained that venue for a state-prisoner habeas petition may be proper in either the federal district where the petitioner was convicted or the district where the petitioner is confined. When a petition challenges the execution of a sentence, including parole or time-credit issues, the district of confinement is the preferable forum.
Jones was convicted in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. But the challenged denial occurred at Calipatria State Prison, where Jones remained incarcerated. That prison is in Imperial County, within the Southern District of California.
Disposition
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3. The order did not decide the merits of Jones’s challenge to the parole decision.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.