(HC) Bienvenue v. Matteson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LAMONTE BIENVENUE, No. 2:20-cv-2006 KJN P 11 Petitioner, 12 V. ORDER 13 G. MATTESON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 || corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 The application attacks a conviction issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 19 || While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was 20 || convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any 21 | and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more 22 || readily available in Los Angeles County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. 8 2241(d). 23 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and 25 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of 26 || California. 27 || Dated: October 20, 2020 28 || rien2006.108 Fe 2 Al Nhesrren. EENDALLJ.NE TINTTET STATES MACTETR ATE TIMNCE