(HC) Flores v. Eaton

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 TIMOTHY JOHN FLORES, No. 2:21-cv-00488 GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK EATON, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 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 Santa Clara County Superior Court. 20 While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was 21 convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any 22 and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more 23 readily available in Santa Clara 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 (ECF 26 No. 2); and 27 //// 28 //// 1 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 2 California. 3 Dated: April 1, 2021 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28