Grant v. U.S. Government

Filing 3

ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:14-cv-2408-JAM-KJN (PS)) to Fresno (1:14-cv-1618 JLT(PS)) signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/16/14. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

O’DEAN M. GRANT,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2408-JAM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

U.S. GOVERNMENT,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On October 14, 2014, plaintiff O’Dean M. Grant, proceeding without counsel, filed this

18

action alleging various constitutional and other violations by the United States Government.

19

(ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the

20

reasons discussed below, the court concludes that the case was erroneously filed in the

21

Sacramento division of the Eastern District of California, and therefore transfers the action to the

22

Fresno division.

23

The court’s Local Rules provide that “[a]ll civil and criminal actions and proceedings of

24

every nature and kind cognizable in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

25

California arising in Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced,

26

Stanislaus, Tulare, and Tuolomne counties shall be commenced in the United States District

27

Court sitting in Fresno, California….” E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(d). “Whenever in any action the Court

28

finds upon its own motion, motion of any party, or stipulation that the action has not been
1

1

commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for other good cause, the Court

2

may transfer the action to another venue within the District.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 120(f).

3

In this case, plaintiff resides in Bakersfield, California, which is located in Kern County

4

and falls in the Fresno division of this district. There is no indication in the complaint that the

5

actions alleged to have been committed by the United States somehow occurred in the

6

Sacramento division. Instead, it appears that the action arises from plaintiff’s interactions with

7

the United States government in Kern County in the Fresno division of this district, and that

8

plaintiff, as a pro se litigant, merely inadvertently filed the case in the Sacramento division.

9
10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The action, including the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is
TRANSFERRED to the Fresno division of this district pursuant to Local Rule 120(f).

12

2. Any dates before the undersigned are vacated.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: October 16, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2