Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 13, 2023

Gutierrez Jr. v. Smith

Judge
Donna Ryu
Docket
4:23-cv-01372
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gutierrez Jr. v. Smith, Judge Ryu transferred the state-prisoner’s habeas petition to the Eastern District of California and denied a related-case motion as moot.

Who this affects

Jesus Gutierrez Jr.’s federal challenge to his state-court conviction was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California. The order did not decide the validity of the conviction.

What happened

In Gutierrez Jr. v. Smith, Jesus Gutierrez Jr., a state prisoner at San Quentin State Prison, challenged the validity of a conviction from the Solano County Superior Court. He filed the petition in the Northern District of California under a federal law governing challenges to state convictions.

The court explained that challenges to convictions are generally heard in the federal district covering the county where the conviction occurred. Because Solano County is in the Eastern District of California, the court transferred the action there. It also denied Gutierrez Jr.’s administrative motion to relate this case to another case as moot.

Judge Donna Ryu issued the April 13, 2023 order. The order transferred the action and denied the administrative motion as moot; it did not decide whether Gutierrez Jr.’s conviction was valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gutierrez Jr. v. Smith · No. 4:23-cv-01372
Judge
Donna Ryu
Date
Apr. 13, 2023

Background

Jesus Gutierrez Jr., described as a state prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A habeas petition is a request for federal court review of a person’s custody. The petition challenged the validity of Gutierrez Jr.’s conviction obtained in the Solano County Superior Court.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that when a state prisoner challenges a conviction or sentence in a state with more than one federal judicial district, the petition may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. The court where the petition is filed may transfer it to the other district in the interest of justice. It also explained that California federal courts traditionally hear challenges to convictions or sentences in the district where the conviction occurred, while challenges about how a sentence is being carried out—such as parole or time-credit claims—are generally heard where the prisoner is confined.

Because Gutierrez Jr. challenged a conviction and sentence from the Solano County Superior Court, and Solano County is within the Eastern District of California, the court concluded that the Eastern District had jurisdiction over the matter. The court ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and directed the Clerk to transfer the case promptly.

Other Motion and Disposition

Gutierrez Jr.’s administrative motion to relate this case to another case was denied as moot. The order transferred the habeas action and denied that administrative motion as moot. It did not reach the merits of the challenge to the conviction.

Judge Donna Ryu issued the order on April 13, 2023. The opinion also states that venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter within the authority of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

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.