Glass v. People of the State of California
- Lee
- 5:24-cv-04102
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Glass v. People of the State of California, Judge Lee denied state-court mandamus, transferred the possible habeas case, and vacated pending motions.
Raymond George Glass’s federal case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. His request for an order directing the California Supreme Court to set a hearing was denied, and his pending motions were vacated.
What happened
Raymond George Glass, a state prisoner, filed a document asking the federal court to order the California Supreme Court to set a hearing. He also sought release from prison and dismissal of his Stanislaus County conviction. In Glass v. People of the State of California, the court found that request unclear but treated it as potentially challenging his conviction.
The court explained that federal district courts cannot order state courts or state officials to act. It therefore denied the request to order a hearing. The court also determined that the Northern District of California was not the proper location for a challenge to the conviction: the conviction occurred in Stanislaus County, and Glass is imprisoned in the Southern District of California.
The court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the conviction occurred, and vacated the pending motions identified as ECF Nos. 11, 12, and 15. Judge Eumi K. Lee entered the order on October 15, 2024.
The detailed version
- Glass v. People of the State of California · No. 5:24-cv-04102
- Lee
- Oct. 15, 2024
Background
Raymond George Glass, identified as a state prisoner, submitted a filing titled an “Original Writ of Peremptory Mandate.” The court said the filing was sometimes difficult to understand. Glass had submitted a petition to the California Supreme Court, but that court had not set a hearing date or responded. Glass asked the federal court to order the California Supreme Court to set a hearing. He ultimately sought release from prison and dismissal of his Stanislaus County conviction.
The opinion notes that Glass’s sentence of 76 years to life was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal in 2005.
Mandamus request
The court denied any request to order the California Supreme Court to set a hearing. It held that federal district courts lack power to issue mandamus—an order compelling a government court or official to take or avoid a particular action—to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties. The court stated that a request for such an order against a state court or official is legally frivolous.
Transfer
Reading Glass’s filing broadly, the court understood him to be seeking habeas relief from his Stanislaus County Superior Court conviction. Habeas relief is a procedure for challenging a person’s custody or conviction. The court explained that venue for this type of action is proper in either the federal district where the person is confined or the district where the person was convicted. The Northern District of California was neither location. Because the conviction occurred in Stanislaus County, and the applicable local rule preferred the district of conviction, the court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The transfer did not decide whether Glass is entitled to habeas relief.
Disposition
The court denied the request to order a hearing in the California Supreme Court, transferred the case to the Eastern District of California, and vacated all pending motions identified as ECF Nos. 11, 12, and 15. Judge Eumi K. Lee signed the order on October 15, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.