Automated Summary
Key Facts
Petitioner Maurice Griffin, a parolee currently residing in Walnut Creek, California, filed a pro se habeas corpus action challenging his 2019 sentence. Griffin was convicted and sentenced in San Diego County, Southern District of California, but now resides in the Northern District of California. The case has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
Whether the habeas corpus petition challenging the 2019 sentence should be transferred from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of California, where the petitioner was originally convicted and sentenced, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and venue rules under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Holdings
The court transferred the habeas corpus petition challenging Maurice Griffin's 2019 sentence from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of California, where the conviction and sentencing occurred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and directed the Clerk to close the case in the Northern District.
Remedies
- The court directed the Clerk to close this case after transferring it to the Southern District of California.
- The court transferred the habeas corpus case from the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and directed the Clerk to close the case.
Legal Principles
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and N.D. Cal. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b) to determine proper venue for a habeas corpus petition challenging a sentence, noting that while venue can be proper in either the district of confinement or district of conviction, such petitions are preferably heard in the district of conviction and sentencing. The case was transferred from Northern District of California to Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Precedent Name
Dannenberg v. Ingle
Cited Statute
- United States Code
- Habeas Corpus Act
Judge Name
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr.
Passage Text
- Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, a petition challenging the sentence imposed is preferably heard in the district of conviction and sentencing. See N.D. Cal. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b); see also Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767-68 (N.D. Cal. 1993).
- Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk is directed to close this case.
- Petitioner, a parolee currently living in Walnut Creek, California, has filed this pro se action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his 2019 sentence.