Price v. The People
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-01238
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Eugene L. Price v. The People, Judge Hixson transferred Price’s habeas case to the Eastern District of California because venue was proper there.
Eugene L. Price’s habeas case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not resolve his challenge to the conviction.
What happened
Eugene L. Price v. The People concerns a petition filed without a lawyer challenging Price’s 2024 conviction under a federal law allowing challenges to custody.
Price was incarcerated in Los Angeles County, and his conviction was obtained in San Joaquin County. The court explained that a habeas case may be heard where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred, but that challenges to a conviction are preferably heard where the conviction was entered.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson transferred the case to the Eastern District of California and directed the clerk to close the Northern District of California case. The court did not decide whether Price’s conviction challenge was valid.
The detailed version
- Price v. The People · No. 3:25-cv-01238
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 11, 2025
Background
Eugene L. Price, an inmate at California State Prison - Lancaster, filed this action without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal statute that allows a person to challenge certain custody-related matters. He challenged his 2024 conviction.
The conviction was obtained in San Joaquin County, which is in the Eastern District of California. Price was incarcerated in Los Angeles County, which is in the Southern District of California. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.
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 where the conviction occurred. It further explained that a petition challenging a conviction or sentence is 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), a statute that permits transfer when a case is filed in the wrong federal district. The clerk was directed to close the Northern District of California case. The order did not decide the merits of Price’s challenge to his conviction.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.