The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The instant petition appears to challenge both the denial of his suitability for parole by the Board of Parole Hearings ("BPH") at a January 18, 2007 hearing, and also Petitioner's 1989 conviction in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. Ground One challenges the state court's denial of his habeas petitions as contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. (Doc. 1, p. 7). A review the Sacramento Superior Court's denial of his state petition clearly shows that Petitioner challenged not only the BPH's denial of parole suitability, but also various aspects of his 1989 conviction, including, inter alia, an unspecified error regarding uncharged evidence of drug trafficking, contradictory testimony, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, insufficient evidence, and claims of improper jury instructions. (Doc. 1, p. 71, p. 73). Grounds Two and Three in the instant petition relate directly to the BPH's decision to deny parole suitability. Ground Four of the instant petition is premised on ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the 1989 trial. (Doc. 1, pp. 36-47). Ground Five of the instant petition, Petitioner challenges the Sacramento County Superior Court's original sentence that included a $10,000 restitution fine. (Doc. 1, p. 48).
Thus, although Petitioner is presently confined within the Fresno Division of the Eastern District, because he is also challenging a conviction from Sacramento County Superior Court, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, in the Court's view, considerations of judicial efficiency suggest that the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division.
Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(b), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the Court's own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. This Court will not rule on Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This Court has not ruled on Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Sacramento; and
3. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at:
United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...