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

Lopez v. Robinson

Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Docket
5:20-cv-07619
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lopez v. Robertson, Judge Van Keulen transferred the state-conviction challenge to the Eastern District of California.

Who this affects

Andrew R. Lopez’s federal challenge to his state conviction was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.

What happened

Lopez v. Robertson concerns Andrew R. Lopez’s petition challenging his state conviction. He was incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, and the conviction came from Stanislaus County Superior Court.

The court explained that a state-prisoner’s challenge may be heard where the prisoner is confined or where the conviction occurred. Because Lopez challenged a conviction from Stanislaus County, the court determined that the Eastern District of California was the preferred location.

Judge Susan Van Keulen transferred the case to the Eastern District of California and directed the Clerk to close all pending motions and transfer the entire case file. The order did not decide whether Lopez’s challenge to his conviction should succeed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez v. Robinson · No. 5:20-cv-07619
Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Date
Dec. 1, 2020

Background

Andrew R. Lopez, identified as a state prisoner at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state conviction from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. The opinion identifies James Robertson and others as respondents.

Venue Analysis

The court stated that venue for a state-prisoner’s conviction challenge is proper either in the federal district where the prisoner is confined or in the federal district where the conviction occurred. It also stated that petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district of conviction. Because the conviction was from Stanislaus County, the court identified the Eastern District of California as the district of conviction.

Order

The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). It also directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire case file. The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the merits of Lopez’s challenge to his 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.