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)

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-03297-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 she would hire an

25

attorney for him but has not done so and has not spoken to him since then. (Id.) (Federal court

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-03297-LB

1

records show that Mr. Krohe’s federal petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his Orange

2

County conviction for which he was sentenced to 76 years to life in prison was dismissed on

3

September 2, 2016, because it was untimely under the federal habeas statute of limitations. See

4

Krohe v. Lizarraga, C. D. Cal. Case No. 16-cv-00131-JGB-KS. The Ninth Circuit denied a

5

certificate of appealability on April 14, 2017. See Krohe v. Lizarraga, Ninth Cir. Case No. 16-

6

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-03297-LB

2