(PC) Clark v. CDC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 21, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01748
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE JAMES CLARK, SR., 1:24-cv-00720-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND CLOSING CASE IN FRESNO CORRECTIONS, et al. 15 DIVISION Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner, initiated this pro se action by filing a civil rights complaint 19 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 20 Nos. 1, 2). Because the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred in Solana County, 21 which is located within the venue of the Sacramento Division of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River County, 64 F.3d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1995) (reviewing 23 federal court jurisdiction and venue in a § 1983 action). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil 24 action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be 25 transferred to the correct court. The Court finds it in the interests of justice to transfer this case to 26 the Sacramento Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Local Rule 120(f). 27 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 28 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Sacramento Division of 1 | this Court and close the case in this division. 2 2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 3 | filed at: 4 United States District Court Eastern District of California 5 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 6 7 3. This Court defers rulings on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. g | 2) to the transferee court. 9 10 | Dated: _ June 21, 2024 Nh. fareh Back 11 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28