Garza v. Amador Superior Court et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/14/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 RAUL GARZA JR., 14 15 Case No. 1:17-cv-01494-AWI-SKO Plaintiffs, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE v. 16 17 18 AMADOR SUPERIOR COURT, Defendants. _____________________________________/ 19 20 21 On November 6, 2017, Plaintiff Raul Garza, Jr. filed a complaint against Defendant 22 Amador Superior Court, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) 23 The complaint purports to allege claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations under the 24 First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution related to a state-court habeas 25 corpus appeal. (Doc. 1 at 3.) 26 It appears from a reading of Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint that the gravamen of 27 this case arose in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California, and any 28 relationship with the Fresno Division is minimal. Plaintiff Raul Garza is presently incarcerated at 1 the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California, which is located in the Fresno 2 Division. However, the events at issue in the complaint occurred in Amador County, which is part 3 of the Sacramento Division. For these reasons, this case should be transferred to the Sacramento 4 Division of the Eastern Division of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which 5 has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the Court=s own motion, be transferred to the 6 proper court. 7 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. This case is transferred to the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; and 9 2. 10 All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at: 11 United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 12 13 14 This Court has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 14, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?