Harris v. Warden Folsom State Prison
- Joseph Spero
- 3:21-cv-06318
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Harris v. Warden Folsom State Prison, Judge Spero transferred the habeas case to California’s Eastern District because it was the preferable forum.
Barnes Harris’s federal habeas action was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not resolve his time-credit claim.
What happened
Barnes Harris challenged the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s denial of time credits that he alleged he was owed under Proposition 57. He was housed at CSP-Sacramento in California’s Eastern District.
The court transferred the action to the Eastern District of California because the district where a person is confined is the preferable forum for habeas petitions involving parole or time-credit claims. The court did not decide whether Harris was entitled to the credits.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero ordered the clerk to transfer the action immediately on September 23, 2021.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Warden Folsom State Prison · No. 3:21-cv-06318
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 23, 2021
Background
Barnes Harris filed a federal habeas action challenging the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s denial of time credits that he alleged he was owed under Proposition 57. The opinion states that Harris was housed at CSP-Sacramento, which is in the Eastern District of California.
Ruling
The court transferred the action to the Eastern District of California. It explained that, for a habeas petition involving parole or time-credit claims, the district where the petitioner is confined is the preferable forum. The court relied on federal transfer and habeas statutes, local habeas rules, and Ninth Circuit precedent.
Effect
The order transferred the case to the Eastern District of California and directed the clerk to do so immediately. The opinion did not decide whether Harris was entitled to the claimed time credits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.