Friery v. Martel

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/15/2010 ORDERING This court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis; and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of California. (Reader, L)[Transferred from California Eastern on 9/17/2010.]

-JMA (HC) Friery v. Martel

Doc. 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. MICHAEL MARTEL, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a request to proceed in forma pauperis. The application attacks a judgment of conviction entered in the San Diego Superior Court. While both this Court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner's application are more readily available in San Diego County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). ///// ///// ///// 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM FRANCIS FRIERY, Petitioner, No. CIV S-10-2408 DAD P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
DAD:md/4 frie2408.108

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis; and 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. DATED: September 15, 2010.

2