Anderson v. Cueva

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DAVID LEE ANDERSON, No. 2:20-cv-1702 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DANIEL CUEVA, 15 Respondent.

17 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.

19 The application attacks a conviction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court.

20 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 Alameda County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

24 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and //// /// 2 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District 3 of California.

4 | Dated: September 23, 2020 71 om ORAH BARNES ande1 702.108 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE