Hill v. Kim

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/28/2017 TRANSFERRING this matter to the USDC for the Central District of California. This court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed ifp. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH T. HILL, III., 12 No. 2:17-cv-0628 GGH P Petitioner, 13 v. 14 MARK C. KIM, 15 ORDER 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 Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. He is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the Los Angeles 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 U.S. 25 484 (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: March 28, 2017 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 Hill.628.Tfr. 9 10 11 12 13 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?