Matteson

(HC) Bienvenue v. Matteson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 21, 20202:20-cv-02006California220 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 LAMONTE BIENVENUE, No. 2:20-cv-2006 KJN P Petitioner, V. ORDER G. MATTESON, Respondent. 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 || 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 Los Angeles County Superior Court. 19 || While both this court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was 20 || 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 22 || readily available in Los Angeles County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. 8 2241(d). Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to…

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.