Parker v. Napa Superior Court
- 3:25-cv-03041
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Parker v. Napa Superior Court, the court transferred Parker’s amended detention petition to the Eastern District of California because he was held there.
Parker’s federal detention petition was transferred from the Northern District of California back to the Eastern District of California; the opinion does not decide the petition’s merits.
What happened
In Parker v. Napa Superior Court, Parker filed a petition challenging a Napa County conviction. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California.
The court dismissed the initial petition but allowed Parker to amend it, asking him to clarify whether he was awaiting trial or imprisoned after a state-court conviction. Parker amended the petition under a federal law covering detention challenges and stated that he was a pretrial detainee.
The court transferred the case back to the Eastern District of California because Parker was held in Kern County, which is in that district. The opinion does not identify the judge’s name clearly; the court ordered the clerk to terminate all motions and transfer the case.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Napa Superior Court · No. 3:25-cv-03041
- May 22, 2025
Background
Parker originally filed a petition in the Eastern District of California that purported to challenge a Napa County conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California. That court dismissed the petition with leave to amend and directed Parker to explain whether he was a pretrial detainee or was incarcerated under a state-court conviction.
Parker filed an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, stating that he was a pretrial detainee. The opinion states that a § 2241 petition generally must be filed in the district where the petitioner is incarcerated and that the proper respondent is the person who has custody over the petitioner. Parker was in custody in Kern County, which is located in the Eastern District of California.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. The clerk was ordered to terminate all motions and transfer the case forthwith. The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the merits of Parker’s detention challenge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.