Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2022

Price v. Warden

Judge
Robert Illman
Docket
1:21-cv-09468
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Price v. Warden, Judge Illman transferred the prisoner’s habeas case to the Eastern District of California because neither conviction nor confinement was in this district.

Who this affects

Scott Richard Price’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the opinion does not decide his challenge to the conviction.

What happened

In Price v. Warden, Scott Richard Price, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, challenged a conviction from the Sacramento County Superior Court. He filed the case in the Northern District of California.

The court explained that a petition challenging a conviction may be heard in the federal district where the conviction occurred or where the prisoner is confined. Neither was true here: both were in the Eastern District of California. The court therefore transferred the case there, rather than deciding the challenge to the conviction.

Judge Robert M. Illman issued the January 3, 2022 order transferring the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The detailed version

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

Case
Price v. Warden · No. 1:21-cv-09468
Judge
Robert Illman
Date
Jan. 3, 2022

Background

Scott Richard Price filed this habeas case without a lawyer. He challenged a conviction obtained in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The opinion states that Price was incarcerated in the Eastern District of California and that Sacramento County is also within that district.

Venue analysis

The court explained that venue for a habeas action is proper either in the federal district where the prisoner is confined or in the federal district where the conviction occurred. The Northern District of California was neither district. The court also stated that petitions challenging convictions are preferably heard in the district of conviction.

Ruling

The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the local habeas rules. The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the merits of Price’s challenge to his conviction. Judge Robert M. Illman signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.