From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thompson v. Cagle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2019
1:18-cv-01050-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019)

Opinion

1:18-cv-01050-DAD-GSA-PC

03-18-2019

WAYNE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. TOM CAGLE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER FOR CLERK TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION IN THIS CASE AND FILE THE MOTION IN CASE 1:18-cv-01020-LJO-EPG-PC
(ECF No. 24.)

I. BACKGROUND

Wayne Thompson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action together with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On August 6, 2018, the case was transferred to this court. (ECF No. 3.) On August 7, 2018, this court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 8.) On January 7, 2019, this case was dismissed as duplicative of Plaintiff's pending case 1:18-cv-01020-LJO-EPG-PC. (ECF No. 14.)

On March 11, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification. (ECF No. 24.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Plaintiff discusses two of his cases in the motion for clarification, (1) this case 1:18-cv-01050-DAD-GSA-PC ("18-1050"); and (2) his pending case 1:18-cv-01020-LJO-EPG-PC ("18-1020"). He requests the court to dismiss this case, 18-1050, and send him a refund of the funds he has paid for the filing fee in this case. Plaintiff argues that he should not have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this case because he mailed the case to the wrong district. Plaintiff requests clarification from Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, to whom case 18-1020 is assigned.

This case, 18-1050, was dismissed and closed on January 7, 2019, and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case is Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin, not Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Court docket.) In light of these facts, and because Plaintiff requests clarification specifically from Magistrate Judge Grosjean, the court shall direct the Clerk of Court to terminate Plaintiff's motion for clarification in this case, 18-1050, and file it in case 18-1020, for Magistrate Judge Grosjean's consideration.

III. CONCLSION

Based on the foregoing, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Plaintiff's motion for clarification, filed on March 11, 2019, in this case and file it in Plaintiff's case 1:18-cv-01020-LJO-EPG-PC. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18 , 2019

/s/ Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Thompson v. Cagle

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 18, 2019
1:18-cv-01050-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019)
Case details for

Thompson v. Cagle

Case Details

Full title:WAYNE THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. TOM CAGLE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 18, 2019

Citations

1:18-cv-01050-DAD-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2019)