Brooks v. Covello
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:20-cv-04421
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Brooks v. Covello, Judge Westmore transferred Brooks’s prison-conditions petition to the Eastern District of California because the prison is there.
Willie L. Brooks, II’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; Patrick Covello was the respondent.
What happened
Willie L. Brooks, II, a state prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition challenging the conditions of his housing there. He represented himself, and named Patrick Covello, the acting warden, as respondent.
The court explained that a state prisoner’s federal petition may be filed in the district where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. Because Brooks challenged prison conditions rather than his conviction or sentence, the court concluded that the proper district was the district where Mule Creek State Prison is located—the Eastern District of California.
The court transferred the case to the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. Judge Kandis Westmore also terminated all pending motions on the Northern District of California’s docket because they were no longer pending there. The court did not decide the substance of Brooks’s prison-conditions challenge.
The detailed version
- Brooks v. Covello · No. 4:20-cv-04421
- Kandis Westmore
- July 31, 2020
Background
Willie L. Brooks, II, identified as a state prisoner incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the conditions of his housing at that prison. The opinion identifies Brooks as representing himself. Patrick Covello was named as the acting warden and respondent.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that a federal petition by a person held under a state-court judgment and sentence may be filed in either the federal district of confinement or the federal district of conviction. The court noted that California federal courts traditionally hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. But Brooks challenged prison conditions, not a conviction or sentence. Because Mule Creek State Prison is in the Eastern District of California, the court determined that the proper district was the Eastern District of California.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, the court transferred the case to the Eastern District of California. It also terminated all pending motions on the Northern District of California’s docket because they were no longer pending in that court. The order did not reach the merits of Brooks’s challenge to his prison housing conditions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.