Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Christopher Klamczynski v. Unknown

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 16, 2012

CHRISTOPHER KLAMCZYNSKI, PETITIONER,
v.
UNKNOWN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis or motion for appointment of counsel.

Petitioner is presently incarcerated at California Correctional Institution in Kern County. He is serving a sentence pursuant to a judgment of conviction entered by the Orange County Superior Court.

The general rule with regard to habeas applications is that both the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted and the District Court where petitioner is incarcerated have jurisdiction over the claims. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). In the instant case, petitioner's conviction occurred in an area covered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis or motion for appointment of counsel; and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

20120416

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.