Holley v. Scott et al

Filing 6

ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:12-cv-1213 KJN) to Fresno (1:12-cv-1090 MJS) signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/3/12. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOEL HOLLEY,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. 2:12-cv-1213 KJN P

vs.
M. SCOTT, CSR, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15

/

16

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action

17

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

18

complaint, plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by defendants. While plaintiff alleges

19

one claim as to defendant Scott,1 who is employed at the California State Prison in Solano,

20

plaintiff alleges multiple claims as to the five other defendants, all of whom are employed at the

21

Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”), concerning alleged violations that took place at PVSP.

22

PVSP is located in Fresno County, which is part of the Fresno Division of the United States

23

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

24
1

25
26

Plaintiff alleges defendant Scott improperly endorsed plaintiff for transfer to PVSP on
February 24, 2011. (Dkt. No. 1 at 8.) Plaintiff was not transferred to PVSP until April 6, 2011.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 8, 11.) It appears plaintiff may not have exhausted his administrative remedies as
to his claim against defendant Scott. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 50-55.)
1

1

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a

2

judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in

3

which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

4

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of

5

the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as

6

provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s

7

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

8
9

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

10

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

11

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

12

request to proceed in forma pauperis.

13

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

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

15

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

16

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

17
18

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

19

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

20
21
22

DATED: July 3, 2012

23
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25

holl1213.22

26
2