Blackwell-Goodloe v. Unknown

Filing 3

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk of Court to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 2/3/2010. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(tkl)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant 21 to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (2009). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and has filed a motion to 22 proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to proceed in forma 23 pauperis as moot. 24 Further, upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred 25 in the interest of justice. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States 26 District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the 27 judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 28 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is does not presently appear -110cv0192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA JENOLA BLACKWELLGOODLOE, Petitioner, vs. UNKNOWN, Respondent.

Civil No. ORDER:

10-0192 BTM (AJB)

(1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT; and (2) TRANSFERRING ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310

1 to be confined at any state prison. Petitioner's state court conviction occurred in San Bernardino 2 County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States 3 District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). 4 Thus, jurisdiction exists in the Central District, not in the Southern District. 5 Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, "[u]nder a provision of the

6 Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of 7 jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could 8 have been brought `if it is in the interest of justice.'" Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 9 Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit 10 has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will 11 be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought 12 elsewhere is "time-consuming and justice-defeating." Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting 13 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, 14 this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2241(d). 16 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state court conviction, the district court of the

17 district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient forum because of the 18 accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district 19 courts in California to transfer habeas actions questioning state court convictions to the district 20 in which the state court conviction took place. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence 21 necessary for the resolution of Petitioner's contentions are more readily available in San 22 Bernardino County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, of course, 23 transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum). 24 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, 25 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States

26 District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 27 / / / 28 / / / -210cv0192

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order

2 upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General. 3 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 -310cv0192

DATED: February 3, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310