(HC) Driver v. California Supreme Court

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 20221:22-cv-00374California350 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BILLY DRIVER, No. 2:22-cv-0550 AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This court will not rule on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner appears to challenge the execution of his sentence. As a general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is currently housed at Kern Valley State Prison in Kern County. Kern County is part of the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. L.R. 120(d). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.