Young v. Schuyler
- Sallie Kim
- 3:24-cv-00032
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Young v. Schuyler, Judge Kim transferred Young’s petition challenging his conviction to the Eastern District of California because the conviction arose there.
Ronald D. Young’s federal petition challenging his 1990 conviction and life sentence was moved from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not decide the challenge itself.
What happened
In Young v. Schuyler, Ronald D. Young asked a federal court to review his 1990 criminal conviction and life sentence from Solano County Superior Court.
The Northern District of California said the case could be heard either where Young is imprisoned or where he was convicted and sentenced. Solano County is in the Eastern District of California, and that district is the preferred venue for challenges to a conviction or sentence.
Judge Sallie Kim ordered the petition transferred to the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. The order did not decide whether Young’s conviction or sentence was lawful.
The detailed version
- Young v. Schuyler · No. 3:24-cv-00032
- Sallie Kim
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
Ronald D. Young sought federal review of a 1990 criminal conviction and life sentence imposed by the Solano County Superior Court. Young is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey County. The respondent is Charles Schuyler, identified in the caption as Acting Warden.
Venue
The court explained that venue—the proper federal court location for a case—is allowed in either the district where a habeas petitioner is confined or the district where the conviction and sentence occurred. Young is confined in Monterey County, which is within the Northern District of California. Solano County, where the conviction and sentence occurred, is within the Eastern District of California.
The court stated that petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district where the conviction and sentencing occurred. It relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3.
Disposition
The court ordered that the petition be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. It directed the clerk to transfer the matter immediately. The order addressed venue and transfer, not the merits of Young’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.