Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 19, 2021

Harrington v. Ciolli

Judge
Joseph Spero
Docket
3:21-cv-00678
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Harrington v. Ciolli, Judge Spero transferred Harrington’s federal detention challenge to California’s Eastern District under a federal venue statute.

Who this affects

Harrington’s federal detention challenge was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not resolve the challenge’s merits.

What happened

Harrington v. Ciolli concerned a petition challenging Harrington’s federal detention in Merced County, which is in California’s Eastern District. Harrington also challenged the validity of his sentence.

Harrington brought the challenge under a law allowing certain federal prisoners to seek relief from detention, rather than under the usual statute for challenging a federal sentence. The court transferred the case to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered the transfer and directed the clerk to carry it out immediately. The order did not decide whether Harrington’s challenge to his sentence or detention succeeds.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harrington v. Ciolli · No. 3:21-cv-00678
Judge
Joseph Spero
Date
Apr. 19, 2021

Background

Harrington brought a federal detention challenge concerning his detention in Merced County, California. The opinion states that he challenged the validity of his sentence. He proceeded under 28 U.S.C. § 2241’s “savings clause,” rather than under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the statute ordinarily used by a federal prisoner to challenge a sentence.

Court’s reasoning

The court noted that Merced County lies in the Eastern District of California. It transferred the action to that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal venue statute that permits transfer when a case is filed in the wrong district. The order did not address the merits of Harrington’s challenge, including whether his sentence or detention is lawful.

Order

The action was TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the action immediately. The order was entered by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on April 19, 2021.

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.