(HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA

E.D. California

(HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA

DecidedOctober 15, 2024

Docket2:24-cv-02811

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA ((HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA) 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.

Bluebook

(HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND GEORGE GLASS, Case No. 24-cv-04102-EKL

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 15 10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Respondents.

12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, submitted a filing titled an “Original Writ of Peremptory 14 Mandate.” ECF No. 1 at 1. The filing is at times difficult to understand. Petitioner submitted a 15 petition to the California Supreme Court, but a hearing date has not been set and the California 16 Supreme Court has not responded. Id. at 2. Petitioner seeks this Court to order the California 17 Supreme Court to set a hearing. Id. at 3. Petitioner ultimately seeks to be released from prison 18 and for his Stanislaus County conviction to be dismissed. Id. Any request for this Court to order 19 the California Supreme Court to set a hearing is denied. Federal district courts are without power 20 to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the 21 performance of their duties. A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official 22 to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District 23 Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 Liberally construing petitioner’s filing, he appears to seek habeas relief from a conviction 25 in Stanislaus County Superior Court.1 Stanislaus County is in the venue of the Eastern District of 26

27 1 Petitioner’s sentence of 76 years to life was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in 2005. 1 California. Petitioner is incarcerated in the Southern District of California. 2 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 3 |} conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This district is neither. Because petitions challenging a 4 || conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction, Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a), and petitioner 5 was convicted in the Eastern District of California, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 6 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 7 2254-3(b); see also Laue vy. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). All pending motions 8 || (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 15) are VACATED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 15, 2024 11 12 Eumi K. Lee 13 United States District Judge © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND GEORGE GLASS, Case No. 24-cv-04102-EKL

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 12, 15 10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Respondents.

12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, submitted a filing titled an “Original Writ of Peremptory 14 Mandate.” ECF No. 1 at 1. The filing is at times difficult to understand. Petitioner submitted a 15 petition to the California Supreme Court, but a hearing date has not been set and the California 16 Supreme Court has not responded. Id. at 2. Petitioner seeks this Court to order the California 17 Supreme Court to set a hearing. Id. at 3. Petitioner ultimately seeks to be released from prison 18 and for his Stanislaus County conviction to be dismissed. Id. Any request for this Court to order 19 the California Supreme Court to set a hearing is denied. Federal district courts are without power 20 to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the 21 performance of their duties. A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official 22 to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District 23 Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 Liberally construing petitioner’s filing, he appears to seek habeas relief from a conviction 25 in Stanislaus County Superior Court.1 Stanislaus County is in the venue of the Eastern District of 26

27 1 Petitioner’s sentence of 76 years to life was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in 2005. 1 California. Petitioner is incarcerated in the Southern District of California. 2 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 3 |} conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This district is neither. Because petitions challenging a 4 || conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction, Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a), and petitioner 5 was convicted in the Eastern District of California, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 6 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 7 2254-3(b); see also Laue vy. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). All pending motions 8 || (ECF Nos. 11, 12, 15) are VACATED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: October 15, 2024 11 12 Eumi K. Lee 13 United States District Judge © 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Glass v. People of the State of CA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-glass-v-people-of-the-state-of-ca-caed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack