UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. HICKS, Case No. 22-06060 NC (PR)

Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 13 v. 14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, 15 Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”). Petitioner challenges his parole determination. See id. at 9 (arguing that Petitioner should have been given “elder parole consideration” in his August 2021 parole hearing). Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). But if the petition challenges the manner in which a sentence is being executed, as Petitioner’s does, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2) (stating that a petition should be heard in the district of confinement if it challenges the manner in which the sentence is carried out); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a challenge to a parole decision “challenges the manner in which his sentence was executed”). Here, Petitioner is housed, and the challenged parole decision was made, in Sacramento County. See Pet. at 1. Sacramento County lies within the Eastern District of California, and so venue is proper in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Eastern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 21, 2022 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 11 United States Magistrate Judge