United States of America v. Bustamante
ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/6/17. New Case Number 2:17-mc-00150-GEB. Old Case Number 1:17-mc-0047-AWI-EPG. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CASE NO. 1:17-mc-0047 AWI EPG
ORDER FOR INTRADISTRICT
TRANSFER TO SACRAMENTO
THE SF LGBT CENTER,
This matter is an application for a writ of garnishment.
On April 30, 2010, Defendant Benjamin Bustamante pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343). As part of that sentence, Bustamante was ordered to
pay nearly $700,000 in restitution. This sentence and restitution were ordered as part of a criminal
case that was prosecuted in the Eastern District of California – Sacramento Division. See United
States v. Bustamante, 2:09-CR-504 GEB (E.D. Cal. Sacramento Div.).
On July 5, 2017, the United State filed this application for a writ of garnishment that
sought to garnish a portion of Bustamante wages from his current employer, The SF LGBT
Center. The application was filed with the Eastern District of California – Fresno Division.
According to the application, Bustamante and The SF LGBT Center are located in San Francisco.
On August 10, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to grant
the writ of garnishment. The time for filing objections has passed and no objections were filed by
any interested party.
Upon review, the Court finds that the application was not properly filed in the Fresno
Division. The Fresno Division has absolutely no connection to the criminal conviction, the
garnishment order, Bustamante’s current location, or The SF LGBT Center. Because the
garnishment order was entered as part of the criminal proceedings in the Sacramento Division, the
United States should have filed the writ application with the Sacramento Division. The Fresno
Division is not the proper venue.
Instead of addressing the Findings and Recommendation or the writ application any
further, the Court will transfer this matter to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of
California. See Local Rule 120(f) (“Whenever in any action the Court finds upon its own motion .
. . that the action has not been commenced in the proper court in accordance with this Rule, or for
other good cause, the Court may transfer the action to another venue within the District.”).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Pursuant to Local Rule 120, this matter is TRANSFERRED forthwith to the Sacramento
Division of the Eastern District of California; and
The Court expresses no opinions with respect to the Findings and Recommendation, which
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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?