LaTour v. A1 Towing
- Riordan
- 5:25-cv-07579
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Sir Casey Forles Dailey Latour v. Al Towing, Magistrate Judge Riordan transferred the prisoner’s habeas case to the Northern District of California.
The transfer affects Sir Casey Forles Dailey Latour’s federal application challenging a state conviction and apparently the conditions of confinement at the San Mateo County Jail; the application will proceed in the Northern District of California.
What happened
Sir Casey Forles Dailey Latour, a state prisoner without a lawyer, asked the court to review a conviction from the San Mateo County Superior Court and also appeared to challenge jail conditions.
The court noted that both it and the federal court in the district where the conviction occurred could handle the application. But witnesses and evidence needed to resolve it were more readily available in San Mateo County.
Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not rule on the application or the request to proceed without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- LaTour v. A1 Towing · No. 5:25-cv-07579
- Riordan
- Aug. 28, 2025
Background
Petitioner Sir Casey Forles Dailey Latour, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The application attacks a conviction issued by the San Mateo County Superior Court and appears also to challenge the conditions of his confinement at the San Mateo County Jail.
Transfer ruling
The court stated that both the Eastern District of California and the federal district court in the district where petitioner was convicted had jurisdiction to consider the application. It further stated that the witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the application were more readily available in San Mateo County. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), the court concluded that transferring the matter would further justice.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the merits of the conviction challenge, the apparent confinement-conditions challenge, or the request to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.