Jason D. McEvoy v. State of California, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Thus, any habeas petition should have been brought in 23
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner in the Southern District of California and determined that the petitioner was confined in Riverside County, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Central District of California. The court ordered the transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division“The Clerk of Court is ordered to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), which requires habeas petitions to be filed in the district where the petitioner is in custody or was convicted and sentenced. Since the petitioner is in Riverside County (Central District) and the state proceedings occurred there, the Southern District lacked proper venue/jurisdiction for the habeas petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, transfer is appropriate when an action is filed in the wrong district and transfer is in the interest of justice. The court cited Miller v. Hambrick and Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman to support the proposition that transfer is preferable to dismissal. The reasoning is sound and follows directly from the statutory requirements and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory venue requirement for habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and applies it to the facts that the petitioner is confined in Riverside County, which is in the Central District. It properly cites 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and supporting case law (Miller and Goldlawr) to justify transfer rather than dismissal. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the motion to transfer. No significant arguments or authorities are omitted.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Jason D. McEVOY, Case No.: 26-cv-1226-AGS-MSB 5 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 6 v. 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Jason McEvoy, a self-represented state prisoner, seeks habeas relief under 11 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but it appears he has filed this action in the wrong district. The Court 12 thus transfers this case in the interest of justice. 13 Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 may be filed in the United States 14 district court for the judicial district in which the petitioner either (1) is presently “in 15 custody” or (2) was “convicted and sentenced” in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 16 McEvoy says he is presently confined in Riverside County, California (see ECF 1 at 1, 12), 17 which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the 18 Central District of California, Eastern Division, see 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). While it is 19 unclear whether McEvoy has been convicted or sentenced on either, or both, of the cases 20 he is challenging (see ECF 1, at 3, 11), those state court proceedings are also in Riverside 21 County (id. at 1, 3, 7-8, 11). Thus, any habeas petition should have been brought in 22 California’s Central District, not its Southern District. 23 When “a court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction[,] the court shall transfer the 24 action to any other such court in which the action could have been brought ‘if it is in the 25 interest of justice.’” Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (discussing 26 28 U.S.C. § 1631). Such a transfer is in the interest of justice because dismissal of an action 27 that could be brought elsewhere is “time consuming and justice-defeating.” Miller, 28 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962)). 1 The Clerk of Court is ordered to transfer this matter to the United States District 2 ||Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 3 ||}2241(d). The Clerk will also serve a copy of this Order upon McEvoy and upon the 4 || California Attorney General. 5 || Dated: February 27, 2026 Kf 6 7 Honorable Andrew G. Schopler g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28