Burk N. Ashford v. Scott Kernan

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 7/18/2017 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.(Henshaw, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/21/2017.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURK N. ASHFORD, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-1470 CKD P v. ORDER SCOTT KERNAN, 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. This 19 court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner is incarcerated in California Men’s Colony and is challenging a disciplinary 20 21 conviction for while an inmate at California Men’s Colony for refusing to participate in 22 programming. California Men’s Colony is in an area embraced by the United States District 23 Court for the Central District of California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 24 25 confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 26 prisoners. Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined 27 here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and 3 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of 4 California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 5 Dated: July 18, 2017 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12/ashf1470.108b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?