(HC)Anderson v. Cueva ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LEE ANDERSON, No. 2:20-cv-1702 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DANIEL CUEVA, 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; and 26 //// 27 /// 28 2 OU UV VEEP OP IOC eer PAY ev 2 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District 3 of California. 4 | Dated: September 23, 2020 5 6 71 oon ORAH BARNES andel 702.108 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28