Simmons v. Macomber

Simmons · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · August 29, 2025 · No. 1:25-cv-01070-SKO (HC)

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered transfer of a state prisoner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition to the Central District of California. The court determined that venue was proper in the Central District because the petitioner challenged a Los Angeles County Superior Court conviction and sought release based on alleged defects in the judgment.

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Sheila K. Oberto
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
August 29, 2025
Docket number
1:25-cv-01070-SKO (HC)
Procedural posture
State prisoner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a Los Angeles County Superior Court conviction. The Eastern District of California transferred the action to the Central District of California based on venue.
Precedential value
Unknown
Parties
Melvin Simmons, Jr., Petitioner v. Jeffrey Macomber, Secretary, et al., Respondents
Disposition
other

Topics

federal habeas corpusvenuecivil procedure

Practice areas

habeas corpusfederal civil procedurevenue

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a § 2254 habeas petition challenging a Los Angeles County conviction should be heard in the Central District of California rather than the Eastern District of California.
  2. Whether the court should transfer the petition to the proper federal district instead of dismissing it.

Holdings

  1. A state habeas petition challenging a Los Angeles County Superior Court conviction is properly heard in the Central District of California, the federal district encompassing the district of conviction.
  2. When venue is improper, the court may transfer a habeas petition to the appropriate federal district for hearing and determination rather than dismissing the action.

Key quotations

in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer (Opinion at 2)

Factual background

Melvin Simmons, Jr., a state prisoner, challenged the underlying judgment of conviction entered by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He alleged that the judgment was void, worthless, and unconstitutional and sought immediate release. Because the petition challenged the conviction rather than merely the execution of the sentence, the federal district court concluded that the Central District of California was the proper venue.

Procedural history

Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition in the Eastern District of California. Although the claims were unclear, the court determined that the petition challenged the underlying Los Angeles County conviction and that venue was proper in the Central District of California. The court transferred the action rather than dismissing it.

Remand instructions

The action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…