Haraszewski v. Warden, Mule Creek State Prison
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 08/16/13 ordering this court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis. CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. (Plummer, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 8/19/2013.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
H. DYMITRI HARASZEWSKI,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
15
No. 2:13-cv-1663 DAD P
v.
ORDER
WARDEN, MULE CREEK STATE
PRISON,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
18
19
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis.
20
The application attacks a judgment of conviction entered by the San Diego County
21
Superior Court. While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where
22
petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S.
23
484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s
24
application are more readily available in San Diego County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and
3
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
4
California.
5
Dated: August 16, 2013
6
7
8
9
DAD:mp
hara1663.108
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?