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)

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