Rollings v. Washington State
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:20-cv-01111
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Rollings v. Washington State, Judge Demarchi transferred Rollings’s Section 2255 petition because only the sentencing court could hear it.
Ronald Rollings, whose Section 2255 challenge was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Western District of Washington.
What happened
In Rollings v. Washington State, Ronald Rollings, representing himself, filed a petition challenging his federal conviction. He was confined at FCI Terminal Island in California.
Rollings alleged violations involving a speedy trial, his appearance at arraignment, a search warrant, and his lawyer’s assistance. He sought immediate release and dismissal of all charges.
Judge Demarchi ruled that a federal prisoner must challenge a conviction or sentence under Section 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence. She ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The detailed version
- Rollings v. Washington State · No. 5:20-cv-01111
- Virginia Demarchi
- Feb. 20, 2020
Background
Ronald Rollings, a federal prisoner confined at FCI Terminal Island in San Pedro, California, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He challenged his federal conviction from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. His claims included an alleged speedy-trial violation, denial of the right to appear at arraignment, use of an unlawfully obtained search warrant, and ineffective assistance of counsel. He sought immediate release and dismissal of all charges.
Jurisdiction
The court explained that a federal prisoner attacking the validity of a conviction or sentence through a Section 2255 motion must file it in the court that imposed the sentence. The sentencing court has jurisdiction over that type of challenge.
Ruling
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the action transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma, Washington, because that court had exclusive jurisdiction over Rollings’s Section 2255 petition. The order transferred the action; it did not decide the underlying claims about the conviction, search warrant, arraignment, speedy trial, or counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.