William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates

E.D. California

William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates

DecidedOctober 16, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02999

StatusUnknown

This text of William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates (William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates) 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

William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 WILLIAM D. LAWSON JR., Case No. 25-cv-06661-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9

10 B. CATES, Defendant. 11

12 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this petition for a 13 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges the validity of Petitioner’s 14 conviction in Butte County Superior Court. 15 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment 16 and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 17 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 18 Each of such districts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the 19 district court for the district where the petition is filed may transfer the petition to the other district 20 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 21 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 22 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 23 1968); see also N.D. Cal. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b) (mandating transfer to the district of conviction). 24 As Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction, the proper venue for his petition is 25 the district in which he was convicted. Butte County is located within the venue of the Eastern 26 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 27 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United ] The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 2 3 SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 16, 2025 5 6 Samm veh Susan van Keulen 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

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 WILLIAM D. LAWSON JR., Case No. 25-cv-06661-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9

10 B. CATES, Defendant. 11

12 Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed this petition for a 13 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition challenges the validity of Petitioner’s 14 conviction in Butte County Superior Court. 15 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment 16 and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 17 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 18 Each of such districts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the 19 district court for the district where the petition is filed may transfer the petition to the other district 20 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 21 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 22 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 23 1968); see also N.D. Cal. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b) (mandating transfer to the district of conviction). 24 As Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction, the proper venue for his petition is 25 the district in which he was convicted. Butte County is located within the venue of the Eastern 26 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 27 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United ] The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 2 3 SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: October 16, 2025 5 6 Samm veh Susan van Keulen 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William D. Lawson Jr. v. B. Cates, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-d-lawson-jr-v-b-cates-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack