IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 3, 2010
AMADOR SERRANO, PETITIONER,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 5) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to appoint counsel.
In the amended petition, petitioner has indicated that he is incarcerated in Imperial County and was convicted in Santa Clara County. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Hence, because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.
Transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (which embraces Santa Clara County) is warranted, based on the likelihood that witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner's application are there more readily available. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This court will not rule on the motions to proceed in forma pauperis and appoint counsel.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.