Waldon v. Fox

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 3/30/2017 ORDERING that this court has not ruled on petitioner's 4 application to proceed IFP. This matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CHARLES EMERY WALDON,

10
11
12

No. 2:16-cv-1420 CMK P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

ROBERT FOX, Warden, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

18
19

The application attacks a sentence upon conviction issued by the Los Angeles County

20

Superior Court. While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where

21

petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S.

22

484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s

23

application are more readily available in Los Angeles County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. §

24

2241(d).

25
26

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

27
28

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and

1
2

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

3
4

Dated: March 30, 2017

5
6
/mp; wald 16cv1420.108

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2