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.]

Download PDF
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?