Prendez v. Superior Court of California Riverside
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:21-cv-08245
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Prendez v. Superior Court of California Riverside, Judge Hixson transferred the conviction challenge to the Central District of California because venue properly lay there.
Richard Prendez’s case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California; the order did not resolve his conviction challenge.
What happened
Prendez v. Superior Court of California Riverside involved Richard Prendez’s challenge to a conviction from Riverside County Superior Court. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at Salt Creek Camp in Paskenta, California.
The court explained that venue for this type of case can be either where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. Paskenta is in Tehama County, within the Eastern District of California, while Riverside County is within the Central District of California. The court concluded that venue properly belonged in the Central District, not the Northern District.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and directed the clerk to transfer the file.
The detailed version
- Prendez v. Superior Court of California Riverside · No. 3:21-cv-08245
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 18, 2021
Background
Richard Prendez was incarcerated at Salt Creek Camp in Paskenta, California, and challenged a conviction from Riverside County Superior Court. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.
Venue analysis
The court stated that venue for a habeas action challenging a conviction or sentence is proper either in the federal district where the person is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. Paskenta is in Tehama County, which is within the Eastern District of California. Riverside County is within the Central District of California. The court also noted that federal courts in California have traditionally heard challenges to a conviction or sentence in the district where the conviction occurred.
Because Prendez’s conviction was obtained in Riverside County, the court concluded that venue properly lay in the Central District of California rather than the Northern District. The court cited 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a), and 2241(d).
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson ordered that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the file. The order transferred the case and did not decide the merits of Prendez’s challenge to his conviction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.