(PC) Frantz v. Mohyddin, No. 2:2020cv02550 - Document 13 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER VACATING 11 Findings and Recommendations and ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Sacramento Division signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/30/2020. New Case Number 2:20-cv-02550-DMC (PC). Old Case Number 1:20-cv-01550-NONE-BAM (PC). (Jessen, A)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARL FRANTZ, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:20-cv-01550-NONE-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, v. (ECF No. 11) MOHYDDIN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff Karl Frantz (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 11, 2020, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and issued 20 findings and recommendations regarding dismissal of certain claims. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff 21 was directed to file objections within fourteen (14) days of service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed objections 22 on December 23, 2020. (ECF No. 12.) 23 In his objections, Plaintiff notes an error in the findings and recommendations regarding 24 the location of the events at issue in his first amended complaint. Plaintiff states that he was at 25 “‘C.M.H.F.’ California Medical Hospital in Stockton, California not at S.A.T.F.” (Id. at 3.) 26 Based on this information, it appears that Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights that took 27 place in San Joaquin County, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States 28 District Court for the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the complaint should have been 1 1 2 filed in the Sacramento Division. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 3 court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action 4 will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. The Court finds it appropriate to vacate the 5 pending findings and recommendations. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 7 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 11, 2020, (ECF No. 11), are 8 9 VACATED; 2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 10 11 California sitting in Sacramento; and 3. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 12 filed at: 13 United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 Dated: /s/ Barbara December 30, 2020 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
