Parker v. Napa Superior Court
- Oberto
- 3:25-cv-03041
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Parker v. Napa Superior Court, Judge Oberto transferred Parker’s state-prisoner petition to the Northern District of California because it challenges a Napa County conviction.
DeWayne Parker’s federal petition was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the order did not resolve his challenge to the conviction.
What happened
In Parker v. Napa Superior Court, DeWayne Parker, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging a conviction from Napa County under a federal law governing state-prisoner cases.
The court concluded that the case belonged in the Northern District of California because Napa County is there. It transferred the case to that district rather than deciding the petition’s claims.
Judge Sheila K. Oberto ordered the transfer under the federal venue law for cases filed in the wrong district.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Napa Superior Court · No. 3:25-cv-03041
- Oberto
- Apr. 1, 2025
Background
DeWayne Parker, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction from Napa County. The respondent is Napa Superior Court.
Venue Analysis
The court explained that federal law generally requires a civil case to be filed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in certain circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Because Parker was challenging a conviction from Napa County, which is in the Northern District of California, the court concluded that the petition should have been filed there.
Disposition
The court stated that, in the interest of justice, a case filed in the wrong district may be transferred to the correct district. Judge Sheila K. Oberto ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the substance of Parker’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.