Krohe v. Steinhardt

Filing 7

ORDER OF TRANSFER. All pending motions will be decided in the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 6/29/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 CHRISTOPHER D. KROHE, Case No. 17-cv-03296-LB Plaintiff, 13 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 14 15 ZANDRA K. STEINHARDT, Defendant. 16 17 18 Christopher David Krohe, an inmate at Mule Creek State Prison in Amador County, filed this 19 civil action against Zandra Steinhardt, who resides in Fresno, California. Mr. Krohe consented to 20 proceed before a magistrate judge. (ECF No. 4.) 1 21 In his complaint, Mr. Krohe alleges that he sent $41,700.00 from his inmate trust account to 22 Ms. Steinhardt to hold until the funds were needed to hire counsel for his habeas petition, with the 23 understanding that Ms. Steinhardt would use that money to hire counsel for Mr. Krohe when the 24 need arose. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) He further alleges that Ms. Steinhardt told him in a January 4, 2017 25 telephone conversation that she would hire an attorney for him, but ever since that conversation 26 27 1 28 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint cites are to the ECFgenerated page numbers at the top of the documents. ORDER – No. 17-cv-03296-LB 1 has refused to communicate with Mr. Krohe. (Id.) (Federal court records show that Mr. Krohe’s 2 federal petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his Orange County conviction for which he 3 was sentenced to 76 years to life in prison was dismissed on September 2, 2016, because it was 4 untimely under the federal habeas statute of limitations. See Krohe v. Lizarraga, C. D. Cal. Case 5 No. 16-cv-00131-JGB-KS. The Ninth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability on April 14, 6 2017. See Krohe v. Lizarraga, Ninth Cir. Case No. 16-56398.) 7 The events and omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in Fresno County or Amador 8 County, both of which are located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. The 9 defendant resides in Fresno County, which is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or omissions giving rise to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 the complaint are alleged to have occurred in, the Northern District of California. Venue is proper 12 in the Eastern District, and not in the Northern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, in 13 the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is TRANSFERRED to the 14 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall transfer this 15 matter. All pending motions will be decided in the Eastern District of California. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: June 29, 2017 ______________________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER – No. 17-cv-03296-LB 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?