(HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California

E.D. California

(HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California

DecidedFebruary 7, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00304

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California ((HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California) 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) Griffin v. People of the State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEXTER L. GRIFFIN, 11 Case No. 19-07698 EJD (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER v. 13

14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, 15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1.) It is unclear whether he is challenging the 20 computation of time credits, (id.), or the underlying conviction out of Sacramento County, 21 (id. at 6-8). 22 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 23 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 24 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 25 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 26 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 27 petition challenges the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves 1 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Petitioner was convicted in Sacramento County which lies within the Eastern 3 || District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner is currently confined at Coalinga 4 || State Hospital, (Docket No. 1 at 1), in Fresno County which is also within the Eastern 5 || District. Id. Therefore, the venue for this action is in that district and not in this one. See 6 |} id.; Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 7 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); g || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). 9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 10 || Eastern District of California. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. «12 || Dated: _ 2/7/2020 EDWARD J. DAVILA 3 United States District Judge

° 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO. SEED 19\07698Griffin_transfer(ED) 26 27

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEXTER L. GRIFFIN, 11 Case No. 19-07698 EJD (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER v. 13

14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, 15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1.) It is unclear whether he is challenging the 20 computation of time credits, (id.), or the underlying conviction out of Sacramento County, 21 (id. at 6-8). 22 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 23 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 24 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 25 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 26 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 27 petition challenges the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves 1 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Petitioner was convicted in Sacramento County which lies within the Eastern 3 || District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner is currently confined at Coalinga 4 || State Hospital, (Docket No. 1 at 1), in Fresno County which is also within the Eastern 5 || District. Id. Therefore, the venue for this action is in that district and not in this one. See 6 |} id.; Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 7 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); g || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). 9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 10 || Eastern District of California. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. «12 || Dated: _ 2/7/2020 EDWARD J. DAVILA 3 United States District Judge

° 15 16 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO. SEED 19\07698Griffin_transfer(ED) 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Griffin v. People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-griffin-v-people-of-the-state-of-california-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack