Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Earl Ben Gilliam (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Northern District of California by a petitioner convicted and sentenced in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to transfer case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted.“Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that while venue is proper in the district of confinement, the district of conviction is the preferred venue for a habeas petition challenging a sentence. The order cites the local rule and a district court case to support this preference, and the transfer is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and local rule authorities to justify the transfer based on the preference for the district of conviction in sentence-challenging habeas cases.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAURICE GRIFFIN, Case No. 25-cv-08498-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 Vv. 10 JEFF MACOMBER, 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. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 10/14/2025 26 Abaiprerel § HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge 28