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

George v. Allen

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:24-cv-01422
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In George v. Allen, Judge Demarchi transferred Keenan George’s petition challenging his state conviction to the Central District of California.

Who this affects

Keenan George’s challenge to his state conviction was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Western Division of the Central District of California; the order also terminated all pending motions.

What happened

In George v. Allen, Keenan George, a state prisoner, filed a self-represented request seeking to reopen a case involving what he called a wrongful conviction. The Clerk treated the filing as an attempt to challenge his state conviction through a habeas petition.

The Northern District of California explained that the petition could be filed either where George was confined or where he was convicted. George was confined in Monterey County, in the Northern District, but his conviction was from Los Angeles County, in the Western Division of the Central District of California. The court chose to transfer the case rather than keep it.

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 order did not decide whether George’s conviction was wrongful.

The detailed version

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

Case
George v. Allen · No. 5:24-cv-01422
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
Mar. 13, 2024

Background

Keenan George, a state prisoner confined at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed a self-represented document titled “Petitioner request to have collateral relief to re-open case from a wrongful conviction.” The Clerk construed the filing as an attempt to submit a petition challenging George’s state conviction from Los Angeles County. The Clerk sent George a notice instructing him to use the proper petition form and submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Venue and Transfer

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a state prisoner may file a petition challenging a state-court judgment 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. George was confined in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. His district of conviction was the Western Division of the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles County.

The court exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the district of conviction, citing furtherance of justice, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b)(1). The opinion also referred to the traditional practice of federal courts in California, although the provided text does not include the complete sentence describing that practice.

Disposition

The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Central District of California. The Clerk was ordered to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not rule on the merits of George’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.