King v. United States Penitentiary
- Robert Illman
- 1:21-cv-08310
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In King v. United States Penitentiary, Judge Illman transferred King’s confinement-conditions case to the Central District of California.
Darrel King and the United States Penitentiary; the case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California.
What happened
Darrel King, a federal prisoner representing himself, filed a petition seeking relief from his confinement. The court determined that his allegations concerned the conditions of his confinement at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville.
The court concluded that the case belonged in the Central District of California because the events occurred there and the relevant parties resided there. It transferred the case to that district.
Judge Robert M. Illman ordered the transfer under the federal venue statute. The order did not decide the underlying allegations.
The detailed version
- King v. United States Penitentiary · No. 1:21-cv-08310
- Robert Illman
- Nov. 2, 2021
Background
Darrel King, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition identified as a request for habeas relief. After reviewing the filing, the court determined that King was seeking relief concerning the conditions of his confinement under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. The allegations concerned events at the United States Penitentiary Victorville, where King was incarcerated.
Venue
The court concluded that venue—the proper federal district for the case—was in the Central District of California rather than the Northern District of California. The events underlying the complaint occurred in the Central District, and the opinion states that King and the defendants resided there. The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The order did not decide the merits of King’s allegations.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.