Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled June 7, 2024

Ledezma v. Hill

Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Docket
5:24-cv-03393
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Ledezma v. Hill, Judge Demarchi transferred Ledezma’s state-habeas petition to the proper California district for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Joe Ledezma’s habeas petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Western Division of the Central District of California; all pending motions were terminated and the case file was transferred.

What happened

In Ledezma v. Hill, Joe Ledezma, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a petition challenging his state conviction from Los Angeles County in the Northern District of California.

The court concluded that the Northern District had no jurisdiction because Ledezma was confined in the Southern District of California and his conviction was from the Central District of California. The court transferred the case to the Western Division of the Central District of California and directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the case file.

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the transfer on June 7, 2024. The order did not decide whether Ledezma’s challenge to his conviction had merit.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ledezma v. Hill · No. 5:24-cv-03393
Judge
Virginia Demarchi
Date
June 7, 2024

Background

Joe Ledezma, a state prisoner confined at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus while representing himself. He challenged a state conviction from Los Angeles County. Although he addressed the petition to the California Court of Appeal, he mailed it to the Northern District of California.

Jurisdiction and Transfer

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a state prisoner’s habeas petition may be filed in either the federal district where the prisoner is confined or the federal district where the conviction occurred, when the state contains two or more federal districts. Ledezma’s district of confinement was the Southern District of California, and his district of conviction was the Western Division of the Central District of California. The Northern District therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the matter.

The court also noted that federal courts in California traditionally hear state-conviction habeas petitions in the district of conviction or sentencing. Exercising its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court found that transferring the case would further justice.

Disposition

Judge Virginia K. Demarchi ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Central District of California. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not resolve the merits of Ledezma’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.