IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 24, 2012
MIKE SOLORZANO, PETITIONER,
BOBBY PHILLIPS, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, petitioner has commenced this action in the wrong district.
In a habeas action, venue is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Petitioner was convicted in the Riverside County Superior Court, but is confined in Mississippi. Thus, the Eastern District is not a proper venue for this action.
Petitioner's habeas petition challenges his conviction in the Riverside County Superior Court. As witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner's application are more readily available in the county of conviction, the court will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973). The court declines to take action on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.