Adamik v. San Joaquin County Sheriff Deputy Price
- Robert Illman
- 1:24-cv-04174
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Judge Illman transferred Adamik v. San Joaquin County Sheriff Deputy Price to the Eastern District of California because neither confinement nor conviction venue was in the Northern District.
Nicole Marie Adamik and the respondents in the habeas case; the case will proceed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
What happened
Nicole Marie Adamik, a self-represented prisoner, filed a habeas case challenging a parole revocation and an ongoing criminal prosecution, both in San Joaquin County.
The court said venue was proper in either the district where Adamik was confined or the district of conviction, and that neither was the Northern District of California. Adamik was held in the Eastern District, where the parole was revoked and the prosecution was occurring.
Judge Robert M. Illman transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The order did not decide the challenges to the parole revocation or prosecution.
The detailed version
- Adamik v. San Joaquin County Sheriff Deputy Price · No. 1:24-cv-04174
- Robert Illman
- July 18, 2024
Background
Nicole Marie Adamik filed this habeas case without a lawyer while incarcerated. She challenged a parole revocation and an ongoing criminal prosecution, both in San Joaquin County.
Venue analysis
The court explained that venue for a habeas action is proper either in the district where the person is confined or in the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The Northern District of California was neither location. San Joaquin County is in the Eastern District of California, and Adamik was also incarcerated in that district. The court further stated that challenges to a conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction.
Ruling
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the applicable local habeas rules. Judge Robert M. Illman did not rule on the merits of Adamik’s challenges to the parole revocation or ongoing prosecution.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.