Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 24, 2020

Anderson v. Cueva

Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Docket
4:20-cv-06806
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Anderson v. Cueva, Judge Barnes transferred Anderson’s state-prisoner habeas case to the Northern District of California without ruling on his fee request.

Who this affects

David Lee Anderson’s application challenging his Alameda County conviction was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Daniel Cueva was named as the respondent.

What happened

David Lee Anderson, who was imprisoned by the state and represented himself, asked the court to review his Alameda County conviction. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court said both it and the federal court in the district where Anderson was convicted had authority to hear the case. But the witnesses and evidence needed to decide the application were more readily available in Alameda County, so the court transferred the matter to the Northern District of California. It did not decide Anderson’s request to proceed without paying the fee.

Judge Barnes ordered the transfer on September 23, 2020. The order did not decide whether Anderson’s conviction or sentence was lawful.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anderson v. Cueva · No. 4:20-cv-06806
Judge
Phyllis Hamilton
Date
Sept. 24, 2020

Background

David Lee Anderson, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking federal review of a conviction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court. He also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning to proceed without paying the required filing fee.

Transfer

The court explained that both the Eastern District of California and the federal district court covering the place of Anderson’s conviction had jurisdiction to consider the application. It determined that the witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the application were more readily available in Alameda County. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), the court concluded that transferring the matter would further the interests of justice.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. It expressly stated that it had not ruled on Anderson’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. Judge Barnes did not decide the merits of Anderson’s challenge to his conviction.

Classification

This is a procedural order because it transferred the case based on the location of witnesses and evidence without deciding the underlying challenge to Anderson’s conviction.

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.