Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 10, 2023

Krause

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:23-cv-05122
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Krause v. C.M.F. Warden, Magistrate Judge Demarchi transferred Krause’s state-conviction petition to the Central District of California.

Who this affects

David James Krause’s state-conviction petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Western Division of the Central District of California; the merits of his petition were not decided.

What happened

David James Krause, a state prisoner at the California Medical Facility, filed a petition challenging his state conviction from San Luis Obispo County. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.

The court explained that state-prisoner petitions may be filed in the federal district where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. Krause was confined in the Eastern District of California, and his conviction was from the Western Division of the Central District of California, so the Northern District had no jurisdiction.

Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the case transferred to the Western Division of the Central District of California. The clerk was also ordered to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file.

The detailed version

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

Case
Krause · No. 5:23-cv-05122
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Oct. 10, 2023

Background

David James Krause, a state prisoner confined at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California, filed a petition without a lawyer challenging his state conviction from San Luis Obispo County.

Jurisdiction and Transfer

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), which allows a state-prisoner petition to be filed in either the federal district where the prisoner is confined or the federal district where the conviction occurred, when the state has multiple federal districts. Krause’s place of confinement was in Solano County, within the Eastern District of California. His place of conviction was San Luis Obispo County, within the Western Division of the Central District of California.

Because neither the district of confinement nor the district of conviction was in the Northern District of California, the court determined that it had no jurisdiction over the matter. The court also noted that California federal courts traditionally hear challenges to state convictions or sentences in the district of conviction or sentencing.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the applicable local habeas rule, the court found that transferring the case to the Western Division of the Central District of California would further the interests of justice. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the case transferred there. The clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not decide the merits of Krause’s challenge to his conviction.

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.