Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2025

Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III v. Andre Gonzales

Docket
5:25-cv-10244
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III v. Andre Gonzales, the court transferred the conviction challenge; the judge’s name is not stated.

Who this affects

Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III’s federal petition challenging his state-court conviction was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California.

What happened

Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III v. Andre Gonzales concerns a state prisoner’s petition challenging a conviction issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Bejarano also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The opinion states that both the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California had authority to hear the petition. It explains that witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the petition were more readily available in Santa Clara County.

The court transferred the matter to the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The opinion does not state the judge’s name; it identifies the ruling only as an order by the court.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III v. Andre Gonzales · No. 5:25-cv-10244
Date
Nov. 20, 2025

Background

Rodrigo Edward Bejarano, III, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He also filed a request to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Court’s analysis

The order states that both the Eastern District of California and the United States District Court for the district where Bejarano was convicted had jurisdiction over the petition. It further states that the witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the petition were more readily available in Santa Clara County. The order cites 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and a Supreme Court decision concerning the appropriate federal district for a state-prisoner conviction challenge.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the furtherance of justice. The order does not decide the merits of Bejarano’s conviction challenge and does not state a separate disposition of his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The judge’s name is not legible or stated in the opinion text.

Court-identification note

The supplied case information identifies the court as the Northern District of California, while the opinion’s heading identifies the issuing court as the Eastern District of California. The transfer destination is the Northern District of California.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.