Martin v. Barnes
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/17/11 ordering this court has not ruled on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, motion for the appointment of counsel and motion for a stay and abeyance. This matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
REGINALD E. MARTIN,
Petitioner,
ORDER
vs.
12
13
No. CIV S-11-1606 DAD P
Respondent.
11
R. BARNES,
14
/
15
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of
16
17
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma
18
pauperis, a motion for the appointment of counsel and a motion for a stay and abeyance.
19
However, petitioner’s application for federal habeas relief attacks a judgment of
20
conviction entered by the Alameda County Superior Court which is located within the Northern
21
District of California. While both this Court and the United States District Court in the district
22
where petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410
23
U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s
24
application are more readily available in Alameda County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
25
/////
26
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
3
pauperis, motion for the appointment of counsel and motion for a stay and abeyance; and
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern
4
5
District of California.
6
DATED: June 17, 2011.
7
8
9
10
11
DAD:kly/4
mart1606.108
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
