Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 29, 2024

Lewis v. Warden

Judge
Edward Davila
Docket
5:23-cv-06274
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Warden, Judge Davila transferred the habeas case to the Eastern District of California because venue was improper.

Who this affects

Kevin Lewis's habeas petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the Warden was the respondent.

What happened

Kevin Lewis, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging his state conviction. The conviction came from Delano in Kern County, while Lewis was confined in Sacramento County.

The court explained that habeas cases may be heard where the prisoner is confined or where the conviction occurred, and that California courts generally hear conviction challenges in the district of conviction. It transferred the case to the Eastern District of California.

Judge Davila also directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the complete case file. The court did not decide the petition’s challenge to Lewis’s conviction.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lewis v. Warden · No. 5:23-cv-06274
Judge
Edward Davila
Date
Jan. 29, 2024

Background

Kevin Lewis, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. The opinion states that the conviction was from Delano, in Kern County. Lewis was confined at CSP-Sacramento, in Sacramento County.

Venue analysis

The court explained that federal law allows a state habeas petition to be filed either in the district where the prisoner is confined or in the district where the conviction occurred. It also stated that federal courts in California traditionally hear challenges to convictions or sentences in the district of conviction or sentencing. Because the conviction was from Kern County, the court concluded that venue properly lay in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District of California.

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). It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not decide the merits of Lewis’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.