Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 13, 2022

Forsyth

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:22-cv-03029
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In re Forsyth: Judge Demarchi transferred the state-prisoner’s resentencing petition to the Eastern District of California.

Who this affects

Misty M. Forsyth’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California, and all pending motions were terminated.

What happened

In re Misty M. Forsyth concerns a state prisoner’s self-represented petition seeking resentencing under Senate Bill No. 81. Her conviction came from Shasta County, California, while she was confined in San Diego County.

The Northern District of California explained that habeas petitions challenging a state conviction or sentence are generally heard in the district of confinement or conviction. Because Forsyth challenged her sentence, the court decided that the Eastern District of California—the district covering Shasta County—was the proper court.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of California. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire case file; the court did not decide whether Forsyth was entitled to resentencing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Forsyth · No. 5:22-cv-03029
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
July 13, 2022

Background

Misty M. Forsyth, a state prisoner confined at a state facility identified as “CCTRP” in San Diego, filed a self-represented petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She claimed that she was entitled to resentencing under Senate Bill No. 81. Her sentence resulted from a conviction in Shasta County, California.

Jurisdiction and transfer

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a state prisoner challenging a state-court judgment may file a habeas petition in either the federal district where the prisoner is confined or the federal district where the conviction occurred, when the state has more than one federal district. The Northern District of California determined that Forsyth’s district of confinement was the Southern District of California and that her district of conviction was the Eastern District of California. The Northern District therefore concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the petition.

The court also explained that California federal courts traditionally hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or sentencing. Because Forsyth challenged her sentence, the court exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California in the furtherance of justice.

Disposition

The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not address the merits of Forsyth’s claim for resentencing.

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.