Olic v. HDSP

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/21/2016 ORDERING this court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed ifp; and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the USDC for the Central District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MILORAD OLIC,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2845 JAM AC P
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER

HDSP WARDEN,
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.

20
21
22

Petitioner is presently incarcerated at California State Prison in Lancaster. He is serving a
sentence for a conviction rendered by the Orange County Superior Court.
The general rule with regard to habeas applications is that both the United States District

23

Court in the district where petitioner was convicted and the District Court where petitioner is

24

incarcerated have jurisdiction over the claims. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410

25

U.S. 484 (1973). In the instant case, both petitioner’s conviction and his place of incarceration

26

occurred in an area covered by the District Court for the Central District of California.

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

California. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

3

DATED: December 21, 2016

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2