Robertson v. Willows Police Department et al
Filing
8
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith. Motions terminated: 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 2/15/17. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
KENNETH WAYNE ROBERTSON,
Plaintiff,
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Case No. 16-cv-06903-DMR (PR)
ORDER OF TRANSFER
v.
WILLOWS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
This case was opened when Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint
15
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on the court’s civil rights form. Dkt. 1. He has also filed an application
16
for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. Dkts. 2, 6.
17
18
19
This action has been assigned to the undersigned magistrate judge. On December 22,
2016, Plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this matter. Dkt. 5.
It is not clear whether Plaintiff intends to file a civil rights action or a habeas action. In his
20
complaint, under the “Statement of Claim” section, Plaintiff claims that the named Defendants in
21
this action, including officers from the Willows Police Department in Glenn County and two
22
judges from the Glenn County Superior Court, “took part in this malicious prosecution.” Dkt. 1 at
23
3. As relief, he requests monetary damages as well as for his sentence to be “vacated.” Id.
24
If this is a habeas case, it should preferably be heard in the district of confinement. Habeas
25
L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner seems to be
26
challenging a conviction and sentence incurred in the Glenn County Superior Court, which is
27
within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. If this action is a civil
28
rights case, the proper venue also would also be in the Eastern District, which includes Glenn
1
County, where the putative Defendants would be found and where the claims arose. See 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1391(b). The court need not decide whether this action should be treated as a habeas case or a
3
civil rights case, because either way the preferable venue is in the Eastern District.
4
Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is
5
TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The
6
Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith.
7
8
9
10
All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer pending in
this district.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 15, 2017
______________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
KENNETH WAYNE ROBERTSON,
Case No. 4:16-cv-06903-DMR
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
WILLOWS POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
8
9
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
That on February 15, 2017, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
19
20
Kenneth Wayne Robertson
#AY1348
Solano Level III 2-212-L
PO Box 4000
Vacaville, CA 95696
Dated: February 15, 2017
21
22
23
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
24
25
26
27
By:________________________
Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable DONNA M. RYU
28
3
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?