Fayed v. Warden SQSP
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fayed v. Warden SQSP, Judge Corley transferred Fayed’s state-conviction habeas case to the Eastern District of California without deciding its merits.
James M. Fayed’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not decide his challenge to the conviction.
What happened
In Fayed v. Warden SQSP, James M. Fayed, a California prisoner without a lawyer, challenged the validity of his Los Angeles County Superior Court conviction in a petition under a federal law allowing challenges to state convictions.
The court explained that such a petition may be filed where the prisoner is confined or where the conviction occurred. It stated that Los Angeles County is in the Central District of California and that conviction challenges are ordinarily heard there. Despite that explanation, the order transferred the case to the Eastern District of California.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley ordered the clerk to transfer the case immediately. The court did not decide whether Fayed’s conviction was valid or whether he was entitled to relief.
The detailed version
- Fayed v. Warden SQSP · No. 3:22-cv-02432
- Jacquelyn Corley
- July 13, 2022
Background
James M. Fayed, identified as a California prisoner proceeding without an attorney, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Habeas corpus is a procedure through which a person in custody may challenge the legality of that custody. Fayed’s amended petition clarified that he was challenging the validity of his conviction in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Venue analysis
The court cited 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), which allows a state prisoner’s petition to be filed in either the federal district where the prisoner is confined or the federal district where the conviction occurred. The statute also allows the district where the petition was filed to transfer the case to the other district in the interest of justice.
The court stated that federal courts in California have traditionally heard petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district where the conviction occurred. It further stated that Los Angeles County is within the Central District of California and concluded that the proper venue was the district of conviction.
Ruling
The order states: “Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.” The clerk was directed to transfer the matter immediately. The court did not rule on the validity of Fayed’s conviction, the merits of his habeas claims, or his entitlement to release or other relief.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.