Harsin v. Hill
- Jon Tigar
- 4:19-cv-07018
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Harsin v. Hill, Judge Tigar transferred the state prisoner’s habeas case to the Eastern District of California because venue was there.
Jason Scott Harsin’s federal challenge to his state-court conviction was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.
What happened
Harsin v. Hill involved a state prisoner who challenged a conviction from the Shasta County Superior Court through a federal petition asking for review of his custody.
The court explained that such a case may be filed where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. Both locations were in the Eastern District of California, so the Northern District of California was not the proper venue.
Judge Tigar ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of California and directed the clerk to transfer the file. The court did not decide the challenge to the conviction.
The detailed version
- Harsin v. Hill · No. 4:19-cv-07018
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
Jason Scott Harsin, a state prisoner at Folsom State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction obtained in the Shasta County Superior Court.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal law permits a state prisoner’s habeas case to be filed in either the federal district where the prisoner is confined or the district where the prisoner was convicted. Harsin was confined in the Eastern District of California, and Shasta County, where he was convicted, also falls within that district. The court therefore concluded that venue was in the Eastern District rather than the Northern District of California.
Ruling
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and directed the clerk to transfer the file. The order addressed venue only and did not decide the merits of Harsin’s challenge to his conviction.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.