Lopez v. The State of California

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/29/2017 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LOPEZ, 12 13 14 No. 2:17-cv-2368 KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a pleading titled “Notice of Filing 18 Against California Courts for Denial of First Amendment Right of Meaningful Access to the 19 Courts.” In this pleading, petitioner challenges a state court criminal conviction. Accordingly, 20 the court construes petitioner’s pleading as an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 22 23 24 Petitioner is presently incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Madera County. He is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the Contra Costa County Superior Court. The general rule with regard to habeas applications is that both the United States District 25 Court in the district where petitioner was convicted and the District Court where petitioner is 26 incarcerated have jurisdiction over the claims. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 27 484 (1973). In the instant case, petitioner's conviction occurred in an area covered by the District 28 Court for the Northern District of California and his place of incarceration is located in an area 1 1 2 covered by the Fresno Division of the District Court for the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is 3 transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Id. at 499 4 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 5 Dated: November 29, 2017 6 7 8 9 lope2368.108a 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?