Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber

District Court, S.D. California·Decided October 14, 2025·No. 3:25-cv-02756·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 MAURICE GRIFFIN, Case No. 25-cv-08498-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 Vv. 11 Respondent. 12

13 Petitioner, a parolee currently living in Walnut Creek, California, has filed this pro se 14 || action seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241, challenging his 2019 3 15 sentence. See generally ECF No. 1. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in San Diego County, a 16 || which is in the Southern District of California. /d. Petitioner currently resides in the Northern 3 17 || District of California. Jd. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement 18 || or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, a petition challenging the sentence 19 || imposed is preferably heard in the district of conviction and sentencing. See N.D. Cal. Habeas 20 L.R. 2254-3(b); see also Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767-68 (N.D. Cal. 1993). 21 Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.§ 22 || 84(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 23 Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk is directed to close this case. 25 || Dated: 10/14/2025 26 Abaiprerel § HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge 28

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

Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber (Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dannenberg v. Ingle
831 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. California, 1993)