Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2020

Rogers v. Virga

Judge
William Alsup
Docket
3:11-cv-03751
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rogers v. Virga, Judge William Alsup transferred Rogers’s habeas case to the Central District of California because his conviction arose there.

Who this affects

Jamar Raylee Rogers’s habeas case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California, and the Central District was left to decide his request for more time to file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.

What happened

Rogers v. Virga is a case in which Jamar Raylee Rogers challenged a conviction and sentence from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Rogers was incarcerated at New Folsom State Prison in Sacramento.

Judge Alsup explained that a habeas case may be heard where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. Because the conviction occurred in Los Angeles County, the court found that the Central District of California was the preferred venue.

Judge William Alsup ordered the case transferred to the Central District of California. He deferred ruling on Rogers’s request for more time to file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee, leaving that request for the receiving court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rogers v. Virga · No. 3:11-cv-03751
Judge
William Alsup
Date
Aug. 25, 2020

Background

Jamar Raylee Rogers filed a habeas case challenging a conviction and sentence imposed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The opinion states that Rogers was incarcerated at New Folsom State Prison in Sacramento. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.

Venue analysis

The court explained that venue for a habeas action may be proper either in the federal district where the petitioner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. The Los Angeles County conviction was within the Central District of California, while Rogers’s place of confinement was within the Eastern District of California. The court also explained that challenges to a conviction are preferably heard in the district where the conviction occurred.

Ruling

The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the applicable habeas venue rule. The court deferred ruling on Rogers’s request for an extension of time to file an application to proceed without paying the filing fee; the Central District was to decide that request. Judge William Alsup signed the order.

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.