Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00192/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310 -1- 10cv0192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LISA JENOLA BLACKWELLGOODLOE,Civil No. 10-0192 BTM (AJB)

Petitioner,

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AS MOOT; and 

(2) TRANSFERRING ACTION TO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

EASTERN DIVISION

vs.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (2009). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee and has filed a motion to

proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis as moot. 

Further, upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred

in the interest of justice. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States

District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the

judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v.

30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is does not presently appear

Case 3:10-cv-00192-BTM-AJB Document 3 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 3
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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310 -2- 10cv0192

to be confined at any state prison. Petitioner’s state court conviction occurred in San Bernardino

County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1).

Thus, jurisdiction exists in the Central District, not in the Southern District.

Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, “[u]nder a provision of the

Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of

jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could

have been brought ‘if it is in the interest of justice.’” Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th

Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit

has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will

be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought

elsewhere is “time-consuming and justice-defeating.” Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631,

this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d).

When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state court conviction, the district court of the

district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient forum because of the

accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district

courts in California to transfer habeas actions questioning state court convictions to the district

in which the state court conviction took place. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence

necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s contentions are more readily available in San

Bernardino County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, of course,

transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum).

Therefore, in the furtherance of justice,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-00192-BTM-AJB Document 3 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\10cv0192_transfer.wpd, 2310 -3- 10cv0192

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order

upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General.

DATED: February 3, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00192-BTM-AJB Document 3 Filed 02/04/10 Page 3 of 3