Chestang v. Winsaur

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/03/14 denying 6 Motion to Proceed IFP. This action is dismissed. CASE CLOSED. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL K. CHESTANG, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:13-cv-2155 DAD P ORDER CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WINSAUR, 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a 17 18 “Petition for Order to Relieve from Provisions of Government Code 945.4.” (Doc. No. 1.) 19 Thereafter, plaintiff filed a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 1915. (Doc. No. 6.) The court will dismiss this action because it appears to have been filed with this court in 21 22 error.1 As noted above, plaintiff commenced this action by filing a petition for a court order 23 relieving him from the provisions of California Government Code § 945.4, the state’s claims 24 presentation requirement. However, to obtain relief pursuant to the provisions of California 25 Government Code § 945.4, plaintiff must file his petition in the Sacramento County Superior 26 Court and not here in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 27 28 1 Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. No. 5) 1 1 Cal. Gov’t Code. § 946.6. Indeed, plaintiff labeled the caption of his petition “In the Sacramento 2 Superior Court of California,” indicating his awareness that he needed to file his petition in the 3 Superior Court but apparently mistakenly mailed his pleading to this federal court. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 6) is denied; and 6 2. This action is dismissed. 7 Dated: February 3, 2014 8 9 10 11 DAD:9 ches2155.56 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?