Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 1, 2020

Harge v. Roberson

Judge
James Donato
Docket
3:20-cv-04663
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Harge v. Roberson, Judge Donato transferred the prisoner’s petition challenging a conviction to the Eastern District of California because the conviction occurred there.

Who this affects

Demaria C. Harge’s petition will proceed in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District of California; all pending motions were vacated.

What happened

Harge v. Roberson was filed by Demaria C. Harge, a state prisoner representing himself, to challenge a conviction from Stanislaus County Superior Court. Harge was incarcerated in the Northern District of California.

The court said that a petition challenging a conviction may be heard either where the prisoner is confined or where the conviction occurred. Because the conviction occurred in the Eastern District of California, the court transferred the case there. It also vacated all pending motions.

Judge James Donato issued the transfer order on September 1, 2020. The order addressed which federal district should hear the case and did not decide whether Harge’s conviction should be overturned.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harge v. Roberson · No. 3:20-cv-04663
Judge
James Donato
Date
Sept. 1, 2020

Background

Demaria C. Harge, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging a conviction obtained in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Harge was incarcerated in the Northern District of California.

Venue

Venue means the proper geographic court location for a case. The court explained that federal law permits a petition challenging a state conviction to be heard either in the district where the prisoner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. Stanislaus County is within the Eastern District of California.

The court stated that challenges to a conviction are preferably heard in the district where the conviction occurred. It therefore transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(d) and 1406(a), and the Northern District of California's habeas rules. The court also vacated all pending motions.

Ruling

The court entered an order of transfer. It did not rule on the merits of Harge's challenge to the conviction or state that the petition was granted or denied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.