Martin v. People of the State of California
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-05345
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Martin v. People of the State of California, Judge Orrick transferred Martin’s federal time-credit petition to the Eastern District of California.
Verdell Martin and the federal action he filed; the case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.
What happened
In Martin v. People of the State of California, Verdell Martin alleged that he was entitled to 866 days of time credits. He was housed at CSP-Solano in the Eastern District of California and had been convicted in San Francisco County.
The court said that petitions involving parole or time-credit claims should generally be heard in the federal district where the person is confined. Because Martin was confined in the Eastern District, the court transferred the action there.
Judge Orrick ordered the transfer to the Eastern District of California and directed the clerk to transfer the case immediately. The order did not decide whether Martin was entitled to the claimed time credits.
The detailed version
- Martin v. People of the State of California · No. 3:21-cv-05345
- William Orrick
- Nov. 15, 2021
Background
Verdell Martin filed a federal petition alleging that he was entitled to 866 days of time credits. The opinion states that Martin was housed at CSP-Solano in the Eastern District of California and that he had been convicted in San Francisco County, which is in the Northern District of California.
Reason for Transfer
The court explained that a petition involving parole or time-credit claims should be heard in the federal district where the petitioner is confined. It cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d), Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b)(2), and a Ninth Circuit decision.
Ruling
The court transferred the federal habeas action to the Eastern District of California because that was the district of confinement. It directed the clerk to transfer the action immediately. Judge William Orrick did not decide the merits of Martin’s claim for 866 days of time credits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.