(HC) Leonard v Levi et al - 4

Reviews
Shared by: Tim Stanley
Stats
views:
24
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
4/15/2008
language:
pages:
0
(HC) Leonard v Levi et al Doc. 4 Case 2:07-cv-01382-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2 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. GERALD J. LEVI, et al. 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, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner is incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison in Del Norte County and attacks a judgment of conviction entered in Los Angeles County. Del Norte County is in an area embraced by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Los Angeles County is in an area embraced by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently 1 Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOWARD N. LEONARD, Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1382 MCE DAD P ORDER Case 2:07-cv-01382-MCE-DAD Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2 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 confined here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. It appears that any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s habeas petition would be more readily available in Los Angeles County. In the furtherance of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis; and 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). DATED: July 24, 2007. DAD:9 leon1382.108b 2

Shared by: Tim Stanley
Other docs by Tim Stanley
Related docs
(HC) Leonard v. Echoff et al - 5
Views: 18  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Leonard v. Walker - 3
Views: 27  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Charles v. Evans et al - 4
Views: 15  |  Downloads: 0
(HC)Love v. Horel et al - 3
Views: 25  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Woods v. Horel et al - 3
Views: 25  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Robinson v. Horel et al - 2
Views: 23  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Ramos v. Horel et al - 3
Views: 34  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Robinson v. Krammer et al - 4
Views: 22  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Richards v. The People et al - 4
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Robinson v. Krammer et al - 4
Views: 11  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Richards v. The People et al - 4
Views: 20  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Colon v. Dawson et al - 4
Views: 18  |  Downloads: 0
(HC) Hardney v. Wong et al - 4
Views: 21  |  Downloads: 0