Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00804-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ellie Duby
Petitioner
State of California
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLIE DUBY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-0804 GEB GGH P

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

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 in Riverside County and was convicted in San Diego

County. Riverside County is located in an area embraced by the United States District Court for

the Central District, while San Diego County is encompassed within the area embraced by the

United States District Court for the Southern District. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-00804-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 05/14/07 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

When there is concurrent jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 1

484 (1973), because any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s

application are more readily available in the county of conviction, id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d), the matter is transferred to such jurisdiction.

2

state prisoners. In the instant case, however, both petitioner’s conviction and his place of 1

incarceration are located in areas not covered by this district, the Eastern District of California. 

Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined here, this court

does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

DATED: 5/14/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

duby0804.108 

Case 2:07-cv-00804-GEB-GGH Document 5 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 2