Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2024

Baker v. Superior Courts of California

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
3:24-cv-00449
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Baker v. Schuyler, Judge Kim transferred Baker’s habeas petition to the Eastern District of California because it challenges a Sacramento County sentence.

Who this affects

Jamaul Lee Baker’s federal habeas petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; Charles Schuyler was substituted as the respondent.

What happened

In Jamaul Lee Baker v. Charles Schuyler, Baker sought federal review of a sentence from Sacramento County Superior Court. The court noted that Sacramento County is in the Eastern District of California, while Baker is incarcerated in Monterey County, in the Northern District.

Federal law allows a habeas petition to be heard where the person is confined or where the conviction occurred. But petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district where the conviction or sentencing took place.

Judge Sallie Kim ordered the petition transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under the federal venue statute and the court’s habeas rules. The clerk was ordered to transfer the matter immediately. The order also substituted Acting Warden Charles Schuyler for former Warden Trent Allen as the respondent.

The detailed version

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

Case
Baker v. Superior Courts of California · No. 3:24-cv-00449
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
Feb. 13, 2024

Background

Jamaul Lee Baker sought federal habeas review of a sentence from Sacramento County Superior Court. Baker was incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey County. The opinion states that Sacramento County is within the Eastern District of California, while Monterey County is within the Northern District of California.

Venue analysis

The court explained that federal law permits a habeas case to be heard either in the district where the petitioner is confined or in the district where the petitioner was convicted. However, petitions challenging a conviction or sentence, rather than the execution of a sentence, are preferably heard in the district where the conviction or sentencing occurred.

Ruling

The court ordered the petition transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), citing the interest of justice. The clerk was ordered to transfer the matter immediately. The order also states that Acting Warden Charles Schuyler was substituted for former Warden Trent Allen as the proper respondent.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.