(HC) Smith v. Hill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE SMITH, No. 2:20-cv-0863 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICK HILL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis 19 and a request for appointment of counsel. 20 The application attacks a conviction issued by the Superior Court in Alameda County. 21 While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was 22 convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any 23 and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more 24 readily available in Alameda County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 25 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis or 27 request for appointment of counsel; and 28 //// wOASe 2 OU OMUT IO er AY ev 1 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 2 || California. 3 || DATED: May 1, 2020 ~ 4 Attlien— Lhane ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28