Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00300/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00300-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank J. Ashley
Petitioner
Darin Young
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK J. ASHLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

DARIN YOUNG,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-00300 GGH P

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 Sioux Falls, South Dakota and was convicted in Pennington

County. Both Sioux Falls and Pennington County are in an area embraced by the United States 

District Court for the District of South Dakota.

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 state 

////

////

////

////

Case 2:20-cv-00300-GGH Document 4 Filed 02/24/20 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

27

28

2

prisoners. Because petitioner was not convicted in this district, and is not presently confined

here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the application.1

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and

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

Dakota. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Dated: February 24, 2020

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Petitioner contends that the Eastern District of California is the more appropriate forum because 

pertinent witnesses reside in this district. However, the location of witnesses cannot confer jurisdiction in 

habeas corpus.

Case 2:20-cv-00300-GGH Document 4 Filed 02/24/20 Page 2 of 2