Griffin v. Macomber
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:25-cv-08498
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Griffin v. Macomber, Judge Gilliam transferred Griffin’s petition challenging his sentence to the Southern District of California.
Maurice Griffin’s sentence-challenge petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Southern District of California; the opinion did not decide the underlying challenge.
What happened
Maurice Griffin v. Jeff Macomber concerns Griffin’s pro se petition asking for court review of his 2019 sentence. Griffin was convicted and sentenced in San Diego County, while he currently lives in Walnut Creek, California.
The court explained that a sentence challenge may be heard in the district where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. It said these challenges are preferably heard in the district where the conviction and sentencing took place.
The court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and directed the clerk to close the case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. did not decide the underlying challenge to Griffin’s sentence.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Macomber · No. 4:25-cv-08498
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 14, 2025
Background
Maurice Griffin, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 2019 sentence. The opinion states that Griffin is a parolee currently living in Walnut Creek, California, and that he was convicted and sentenced in San Diego County.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that venue for a § 2241 petition is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. It further explained that a petition challenging an imposed sentence is preferably heard in the district where the conviction and sentencing occurred. San Diego County is in the Southern District of California.
Disposition
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It directed the clerk to close the case. The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the merits of Griffin’s challenge to his sentence.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.