Denell Caver v. Leanna Lundy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DENELL CAVER, No. 2:25-cv-2019 CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 LEANNA LUNDY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or submitted a request 19 to proceed in forma pauperis. 20 Petitioner challenges the April 2024 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings 21 to deny him parole. Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the execution of a 22 sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 23 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison sentence). As a 24 general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the 25 prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is 26 incarcerated at California State Prison, Los…