Smith v. State of California et al

Filing 12

ORDER Denying 11 Motion for Reinstatement of Previously Transferred Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/20/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROBERT P. SMITH, III,

CASE NO.

1:11-cv-317-LJO-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY
TRANSFERRED CASE

v.

13

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

(ECF No. 11)

/

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Robert P. Smith, III (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff initiated this action in the Northern District of California on July 6, 2010.
(ECF No. 1.)

On February 23, 2011, the Northern District ordered that the case

21
22

transferred here becasue most of the events at issue in this case occurred in the Eastern

23

District and most of the Defendants reside in the Eastern District. (ECF No. 3.) On April

24

12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this action be re-transferred to the Northern

25

District. (ECF No. 9.) The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and the case was re-transferred

26

to the Northern District. (ECF No. 10.) This action is currently proceeding in the Northern

27

District.

1

On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the case be

2

reinstated in the Eastern District. (Mot., ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff makes this request because

3

the Northern District dismissed those of his claims which arose in the Eastern District and

4
5

those Defendants who reside in the Eastern District. (Id. at 9.) The Northern District

6

allowed Plaintiff to proceed there only on that portion of his action with ties to the Northern

7

District. (Id.) It dismissed the claims and Defendants without prejudice and gave Plaintiff

8

leave to assert them in a separate suit in the Eastern District. (Id.)

9
10

This Court can not act on Plaintiff’s motion. This Court has no jurisdiction over the
case pending in the Northern District or the actions taken by that Court. The proper

11
12
13

procedure for Plaintiff to pursue those dismissed claims and parties is to initiate a new
action asserting them in the Eastern District.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reinstatement (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. Plaintiff

15

may file a new suit in the Eastern District with the claims and parties dismissed by the

16

Northern District.

17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20

Dated:

21

ci4d6

22
23
24
25
26
27

March 20, 2012

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE