Hosley v. Peery

Full title: DASHEME KAREME HOSLEY, Petitioner, v. SUZANNE M. PEERY, Warden, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 8, 2015

2:15-cv-1788 DAD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2015)

Opinion

DASHEME KAREME HOSLEY, Petitioner, v. SUZANNE M. PEERY, Warden, Respondent. No. 2:15-cv-1788 DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 8, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         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. In his application, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction entered in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. Stanislaus County is part of the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d).

         Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the court. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

         2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno; and

         3. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and shall be filed at: