Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled July 18, 2022

Constancio v. Sacramento Superior Court

Judge
Robert Illman
Docket
1:22-cv-03393
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Constancio v. Sacramento Superior Court, Judge Illman transferred the prisoner’s conviction challenge to the Eastern District of California because venue was proper there.

Who this affects

Oscar M Constancio’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California for further proceedings.

What happened

In Constancio v. Sacramento Superior Court, Oscar M Constancio, a prisoner representing himself, challenged a conviction from the Sacramento County Superior Court.

The Northern District of California said the case belonged in the Eastern District of California because Sacramento County is there and Constancio was incarcerated there. The Northern District was neither the place of conviction nor the place of confinement.

Judge Robert M. Illman transferred the case to the Eastern District of California. The order did not decide whether Constancio’s conviction was lawful.

The detailed version

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

Case
Constancio v. Sacramento Superior Court · No. 1:22-cv-03393
Judge
Robert Illman
Date
July 18, 2022

Background

Oscar M Constancio filed a petition challenging a conviction obtained in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The opinion describes him as a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer. He was incarcerated in the Eastern District of California.

Venue

The court explained that federal law permits a petition challenging a state conviction to be heard either in the district where the person is confined or in the district where the person was convicted. The Northern District of California was neither location. The court also stated that these petitions are preferably heard in the district of conviction.

Ruling

Judge Robert M. Illman transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the district’s habeas rules. The order addressed venue and did not decide the merits of Constancio’s challenge to his conviction.

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.