Trotter v. State of CA
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:22-cv-00753
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In James Trotter v. State of California, Judge Delaney transferred Trotter’s sentence-challenge petition to the Northern District of California because he was imprisoned there.
James Trotter’s federal sentence challenge was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the opinion does not decide the merits.
What happened
James Trotter, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging how his sentence was being carried out. The opinion identifies the case as James Trotter v. State of California.
The court said these challenges generally belong in the federal district where the prisoner is confined. Trotter was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, which is within the Northern District of California.
Judge Carolyn Delaney ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The court did not decide whether Trotter’s challenge was valid.
The detailed version
- Trotter v. State of CA · No. 3:22-cv-00753
- Richard Seeborg
- Feb. 3, 2022
Background
James Trotter, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed an application under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the execution of his sentence. The opinion states that he was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison.
Reason for Transfer
The court explained that, as a general rule, a challenge to the execution of a sentence should be filed in the federal district where the prisoner is confined. Salinas Valley State Prison is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The court therefore found that transferring the case served the interest of justice.
Disposition
Judge Carolyn Delaney ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d). The order addressed the proper court to hear the case and did not decide the merits of Trotter’s sentence challenge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.