Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2021

Lupercio v. Visalia Police Department

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:21-cv-01023
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Lupercio v. Visalia Police Department: Magistrate Judge Cousins transferred the state-conviction challenge to the Eastern District of California.

Who this affects

Ramon Navarro Lupercio's habeas case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the Visalia Police Department was the named respondent.

What happened

In Lupercio v. Visalia Police Department, Ramon Navarro Lupercio filed a petition asking a federal court to review his state conviction from the Superior Court of Tulare County.

The court explained that a state-prisoner's case may be heard where the prisoner is confined or where the conviction occurred. Because Lupercio challenged a Tulare County conviction, the Eastern District of California was the preferred venue.

Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins transferred the case to the Eastern District of California under the federal venue statute. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lupercio v. Visalia Police Department · No. 5:21-cv-01023
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Mar. 1, 2021

Background

Ramon Navarro Lupercio, identified as a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A habeas petition asks a federal court to review the legality of a person's custody. The petition challenged Lupercio's state conviction from the Superior Court of Tulare County.

Venue

The court stated that venue for a habeas action is proper either in the district where the prisoner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. It also stated that petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district of conviction. Because Lupercio challenged a conviction from Tulare County, the court identified the Eastern District of California as the district of conviction.

Disposition

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 ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The opinion did not decide the merits of Lupercio'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.