(HC)Anderson

(HC)Anderson v. Cueva

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 20202:20-cv-01702California248 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID LEE ANDERSON, No. 2:20-cv-1702 DB P Petitioner, v. ORDER DANIEL CUEVA, Respondent. 16 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. The application attacks a conviction issued by the Alameda County Superior Court. 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). 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 //// /// 28 2 OU UV VEEP …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.