Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 27, 2022

Calderon v. Covello

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:22-cv-03881
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Juan C. Calderon v. P. Covello, Judge Cota granted an unopposed motion to transfer the state-prisoner habeas case to the Northern District of California.

Who this affects

Juan C. Calderon and P. Covello; the case was moved from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California.

What happened

Juan C. Calderon, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging a conviction or sentence from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The case was against P. Covello.

The court explained that both the district where the conviction occurred and the district where the prisoner is held could hear the petition. Because the witnesses and evidence were more readily available in Santa Clara County, the court decided that the case should be transferred to the Northern District of California.

Judge Dennis M. Cota granted the respondent’s unopposed motion to transfer and ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California. The order did not decide whether Calderon’s conviction or sentence was lawful.

The detailed version

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

Case
Calderon v. Covello · No. 5:22-cv-03881
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
June 27, 2022

Background

Juan C. Calderon, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction or sentence issued by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. P. Covello was the respondent.

Reason for transfer

The court stated that, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), both the federal district where the conviction occurred and the federal district where the prisoner is confined have authority to consider a state prisoner’s habeas petition. The court concluded that the Northern District of California was the more appropriate forum because Santa Clara County was within that district and the witnesses and evidence needed to resolve the petition were more readily available there.

Ruling

The court granted the respondent’s unopposed motion to transfer, identified as ECF No. 12, and transferred the matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order addressed venue and did not resolve the merits of Calderon’s challenge to his conviction or sentence.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.