(HC) Cleveland v. Robertson
This text of (HC) Cleveland v. Robertson ((HC) Cleveland v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 EUREKA DIVISION 4 5 PIERRE CLEVELAND, Case No. 20-cv-00300-RMI 6 Plaintiff, 7 □□ ORDER OF TRANSFER Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6 8 SUPERIOR COURT, 9 Defendant. 10 11 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction 12 || obtained in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Sacramento County is in the venue of the 5 13 || United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is incarcerated in this 14 || district. 15 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of a 16 || conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the 3 17 district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 18 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District, this case is 19 || TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 20 || U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). All pending motions are VACATED and will be 21 addressed in the Eastern District. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 30, 2020 24 Ml Z 25 RQBERT M. ILLMAN 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(HC) Cleveland v. Robertson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-cleveland-v-robertson-caed-2020.