Brooks v. Tate

Filing 4

ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:11-cv-2285 DAD) to Fresno (1:11-cv-1503 DLB) signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/6/11. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RODNEY BROOKS,

11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13

No. CIV S-11-2285 DAD P

HAROLD TATE,

14

Defendant.

15

ORDER
/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

17

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In his complaint,

18

plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by defendants. The alleged violations took place at

19

California State Prison - Tehachapi in Kern County, which is part of the Fresno Division of the

20

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d).

21

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in

22

the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

23

division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

24

court. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff’s

25

request to proceed in forma pauperis.

26

/////
1

1

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

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

3

2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

4

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

5
6

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

7

United States District Court
Eastern District of California
2500 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721

8
9
10

DATED: September 6, 2011.

11
12
13
14
15

DAD:mp
broo2285.22

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2