Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County

C.D. California

Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County

DecidedJune 23, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-04290

StatusUnknown

This text of Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County (Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04290-SB-AGR Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, No. 2:22-cv-1050 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner is presently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego 21 County and is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the San Bernardino County 22 Superior Court. Though it is not clear, the petition appears to challenge the denial of a petition 23 for resentencing. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 25 confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 26 prisoners. Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined 27 here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. It further appears that the 28 most appropriate forum for the instant action is the district where petitioner is confined. See 1 Case 2:22-cv-04290-SB-AGR Document4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:65

1 |} Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 499 & n.15 (1973) (district of conviction is generally 2 || the more convenient forum for challenges to conviction). Therefore, this action will be 3 | transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 || States District Court for the Central District of California. 6 || DATED: June 22, 2022 ~ 7 Httven— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 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

Case 2:22-cv-04290-SB-AGR Document 4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, No. 2:22-cv-1050 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 20 Petitioner is presently incarcerated at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego 21 County and is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the San Bernardino County 22 Superior Court. Though it is not clear, the petition appears to challenge the denial of a petition 23 for resentencing. 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 25 confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 26 prisoners. Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined 27 here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. It further appears that the 28 most appropriate forum for the instant action is the district where petitioner is confined. See 1 Case 2:22-cv-04290-SB-AGR Document4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:65

1 |} Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 499 & n.15 (1973) (district of conviction is generally 2 || the more convenient forum for challenges to conviction). Therefore, this action will be 3 | transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 || States District Court for the Central District of California. 6 || DATED: June 22, 2022 ~ 7 Httven— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jermaine Joseph Dunlap v. The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jermaine-joseph-dunlap-v-the-superior-court-of-san-bernardino-county-cacd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack