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

Flores v. Eaton

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:21-cv-02407
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Flores v. Eaton, Magistrate Judge Hollows transferred Flores’s habeas case to the Northern District of California without ruling on his fee request.

Who this affects

Timothy John Flores’s federal challenge to his Santa Clara County Superior Court conviction was transferred to the Northern District of California, where the case could proceed. The order did not resolve his request to proceed without paying the filing fee or the merits of his habeas application.

What happened

Timothy John Flores, a state prisoner representing himself, asked for federal review of a conviction from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. He also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The Eastern District of California said both it and the federal court covering the place of conviction had jurisdiction. Because the witnesses and evidence were more readily available in Santa Clara County, the court transferred the matter to the Northern District of California. It did not rule on Flores’s request to proceed without paying the fee.

The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on April 1, 2021. The court transferred the case; it did not decide whether Flores was entitled to habeas relief.

The detailed version

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

Case
Flores v. Eaton · No. 5:21-cv-02407
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Apr. 1, 2021

Background

Timothy John Flores, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenged a conviction issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court and also requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Court’s reasoning

The Eastern District of California stated that both it and the United States District Court for the district where Flores was convicted had jurisdiction over the application. The court concluded that the witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the application were more readily available in Santa Clara County. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), the court determined that transferring the matter would further justice.

Order

The court ordered that it had not ruled on Flores’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee. It transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the merits of Flores’s habeas application or whether he should receive habeas relief. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows signed the order on April 1, 2021.

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.