SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
- Charles Breyer
- 3:23-cv-00552
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Shove v. State of California, Judge Breyer transferred Shove’s petition to the Central District of California.
Theodore Shove’s petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California, where the court handling the case will be the district covering the county of conviction.
What happened
Theodore Shove, a California state prisoner, filed a petition challenging his conviction and death sentence in the District of Columbia. That court transferred the case to the Northern District of California because Shove was confined there.
The Northern District explained that challenges to a conviction and sentence are preferably heard where the conviction occurred. Because Shove was convicted in Los Angeles County, the court ordered the petition transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division.
Judge Charles R. Breyer issued the transfer order on February 9, 2023. The order addressed where the case should be heard and did not decide Shove’s challenge to his conviction or sentence.
The detailed version
- SHOVE v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA · No. 3:23-cv-00552
- Charles Breyer
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
Theodore Shove, identified as a California state prisoner on death row at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition challenging a 2008 conviction and sentence from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He filed the petition without a lawyer in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. That court transferred the case to the Northern District of California because Shove was confined at San Quentin, which is in Marin County.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal law permits a petition challenging a state conviction or sentence to be heard either in the district where the prisoner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. It also explained that challenges to a conviction or sentence, rather than challenges concerning how a sentence is being carried out, are preferably heard in the district of conviction.
Ruling
Because Shove’s conviction occurred in Los Angeles County, the Northern District 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. The clerk was ordered to transfer the matter immediately. The order did not resolve the merits of Shove’s challenge to his conviction or sentence.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.