Anderson v. Walker
Filing
14
ORDER CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division. New Case Number 2:10-cv-1649-EFB. Old Case Number 1:10-cv-00432-MJS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/29/2010. (Marrujo, C)
(HC)Anderson v. Walker
Doc. 14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. JAMES WALKER, Warden, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner is challenging a conviction from Sacramento County, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. /// -1Dockets.Justia.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FREDRICK ANDERSON, Petitioner,
1:10-cv-00432-MJS (HC) ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Sacramento; and 3. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814
IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -2Dated: ci4d6 June 25, 2010 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael J. Seng
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?