Olson v. Alameda County Superior Court
- Robert Illman
- 1:23-cv-04219
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Olson v. Alameda County Superior Court, Judge Illman transferred the prisoner’s conviction challenge to the Eastern District of California because conviction and confinement were there.
Olson, a prisoner representing himself and challenging a conviction obtained in Amador County Superior Court; the case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.
What happened
Olson v. Alameda County Superior Court involved a prisoner representing himself who challenged a conviction obtained in Amador County Superior Court.
The federal court said that a conviction challenge may be heard in the district where the conviction occurred or where the prisoner is confined. Neither was true in the Northern District of California; both were true in the Eastern District.
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Judge Robert M. Illman issued the order on October 18, 2023.
The detailed version
- Olson v. Alameda County Superior Court · No. 1:23-cv-04219
- Robert Illman
- Oct. 18, 2023
Background
Olson, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging a conviction obtained in the Amador County Superior Court. The opinion states that Amador County is within the Eastern District of California and that Olson is incarcerated in that district.
Venue
The court explained that federal law permits a petition challenging a state conviction to be filed in either the federal district where the conviction occurred or the district where the prisoner is confined. The Northern District of California was neither district. The court also noted that petitions challenging convictions are preferably heard in the district of conviction.
Ruling
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas Local Rules 2254-3(a) and 2254-3(b). The order addressed venue and transfer; it did not decide the validity of the conviction or the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.