-GGH (PS) Greene v. New Carver Apartments, No. 2:2011cv00584 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/9/11 VACATING 3 Order Dismissing Case and 4 Judgment. It is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. CASE REOPENED. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
-GGH (PS) Greene v. New Carver Apartments Doc. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CEDRIC GREENE, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 11-0584 KJM GGH PS vs. NEW CARVER APARTMENTS, Defendant. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 15 16 17 RECOMMENDATIONS / On March 9, 2011, this court issued an order which should have been issued as 18 findings and recommendations. Therefore, the order filed March 9, 2011 is vacated, and the 19 following findings and recommendations are issued instead. 20 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has filed a request to proceed in 21 forma pauperis. A review of the court docket for the Central District of California reveals that 22 plaintiff has filed over seventy actions in that district and that he has been ordered to show cause 23 why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. See Greene v. Mens Central Jail, case no. 24 2:11-cv-00997-UA-SS, docket no. 2 (February 18, 2011). 25 26 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 2 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 3 situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the 4 time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be 5 brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). 6 In this case, plaintiff’s pleading concedes that the proper venue is Los Angeles, 7 which is in the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court may dismiss 8 an action laying venue in the wrong district. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Judgment entered on March 9, 2011 is vacated. 11 2. The order filed in this case on March 9, 2011, (dkt. # 3), is vacated. 12 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 13 14 prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 15 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 16 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 17 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 18 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 19 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 20 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 DATED: March 9, 2011 22 23 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GGH:076/greene0584.ifp2.wpd 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.