Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2022

SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Judge
Charles Breyer
Docket
3:22-cv-01521
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Theodore Shove v. State of California, Judge Breyer transferred Shove’s petition challenging his conviction and sentence to the Central District of California.

Who this affects

Theodore Shove’s petition was moved from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California, which will hear the case. The State of California is the respondent.

What happened

Theodore Shove, a California prisoner on death row, filed a petition challenging his state conviction and sentence. He filed it without a lawyer in the District of Columbia, which transferred it to the Northern District of California because he was confined there.

The Northern District of California ordered the petition transferred to the Central District of California. The court explained that the challenged conviction and sentence came from Los Angeles County, which is within the Central District’s venue.

Judge Breyer did not decide whether Shove’s conviction or sentence was lawful. The March 14, 2022 order addressed only which federal court should hear the petition.

The detailed version

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

Case
SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA · No. 3:22-cv-01521
Judge
Charles Breyer
Date
Mar. 14, 2022

Background

Theodore Shove, identified in the caption as G11092, is a California state prisoner on death row at San Quentin State Prison. The opinion states that his conviction and sentence resulted from a 2008 judgment by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Shove filed, without a lawyer, a petition asking a federal court to review that conviction and sentence.

Shove initially filed the petition in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That court transferred the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) because Shove was confined at San Quentin State Prison in Marin County, which is within the Northern District’s venue.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that a petition challenging a conviction or sentence may generally be heard either in the federal district where the prisoner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. It also noted that petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district of conviction rather than in the district of confinement.

Because Shove challenged a conviction and sentence from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Northern District of California ordered the petition transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b) to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, in the interest of justice.

Disposition

The court ordered that the petition be transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division. The order did not address the merits of Shove’s challenge to his conviction or sentence.

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.