From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Foss

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 20, 2021
2:21-cv-01620 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01620 GGH P

09-20-2021

JEROME SMITH, Petitioner, v. TAMMY FOSS, Warden, Respondent.


ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES 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 has not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee.

In his application, petitioner challenges a conviction issued by the Stanislaus County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Stanislaus 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.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court has not ruled on petitioner's motion to stay (ECF No. 3);

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

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

United States District Court
Eastern District of California
2500 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721


Summaries of

Smith v. Foss

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 20, 2021
2:21-cv-01620 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2021)
Case details for

Smith v. Foss

Case Details

Full title:JEROME SMITH, Petitioner, v. TAMMY FOSS, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 20, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-01620 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 20, 2021)