(HC) Cardenas v. California State ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANNY CARDENAS, Jr., No. 2:20-cv-01694 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA STATE, 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 a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 The application attacks a conviction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court. 20 While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was 21 convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any 22 and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more 23 readily available in Alameda County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 24 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 26 No. 2); and 27 //// 28 //// 1 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 2 California. 3 Dated: August 31, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28