From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hardney v. Lizarraga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 5, 2015
2:14-cv-2964 TLN DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)

Opinion


JOHN HARDNEY, Petitioner, v. J. LIZARRAGA, Respondent. No. 2:14-cv-2964 TLN DAD P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 5, 2015

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a decision of the Kings County Superior Court to collect from him a filing fee in connection with his filing of a writ of mandate in that court. Kings County is part of the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d).

         Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the court. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno; and

         2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and shall be filed at:


Summaries of

Hardney v. Lizarraga

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 5, 2015
2:14-cv-2964 TLN DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Hardney v. Lizarraga

Case Details

Full title:JOHN HARDNEY, Petitioner, v. J. LIZARRAGA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 5, 2015

Citations

2:14-cv-2964 TLN DAD P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2015)