Avonte Hartsfield v. CDCR, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se state prisoner filed a habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of California challenging a conviction from San Diego County. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California because witnesses and evidence are more readily available there.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the habeas corpus petition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that while it had jurisdiction, the Southern District of California was a more appropriate forum because the witnesses and evidence necessary to resolve the petition were located there. This aligns with the 'in the furtherance of justice' standard for transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Braden) and the relevant statute to justify the transfer based on the convenience of witnesses and evidence. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a transfer order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AVONTE HARTSFIELD, No. 2:26-cv-1020 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CDCR, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The application attacks a conviction issued by the San 19 Diego County Superior Court. While both this court and the United States District Court in the 20 district where petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit 21 Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of 22 petitioner’s application are more readily available in San Diego County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 23 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 3 | California. 4 | Dated: April 2, 2026 Card ke yy a 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 | Iks hart1020.108 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28