From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thornton v. Castillo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 4, 2021
2:21-cv-0955 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0955 AC P

06-04-2021

SIMON THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. A. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by defendants. The alleged violations took place in Kern County, which 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. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis;

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:


Summaries of

Thornton v. Castillo

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 4, 2021
2:21-cv-0955 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Thornton v. Castillo

Case Details

Full title:SIMON THORNTON, Plaintiff, v. A. CASTILLO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 4, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-0955 AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2021)