Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robert P. Smith, Iii v. State of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 20, 2012

ROBERT P. SMITH, III,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR REINSTATEMENT OF PREVIOUSLY TRANSFERRED CASE (ECF No. 11)

Plaintiff Robert P. Smith, III ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action in the Northern District of California on July 6, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On February 23, 2011, the Northern District ordered that the case transferred here becasue most of the events at issue in this case occurred in the Eastern District and most of the Defendants reside in the Eastern District. (ECF No. 3.) On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that this action be re-transferred to the Northern District. (ECF No. 9.) The Court granted Plaintiff's motion and the case was re-transferred to the Northern District. (ECF No. 10.) This action is currently proceeding in the Northern District.

On September 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the case be reinstated in the Eastern District. (Mot., ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff makes this request because the Northern District dismissed those of his claims which arose in the Eastern District and those Defendants who reside in the Eastern District. (Id. at 9.) The Northern District allowed Plaintiff to proceed there only on that portion of his action with ties to the Northern District. (Id.) It dismissed the claims and Defendants without prejudice and gave Plaintiff leave to assert them in a separate suit in the Eastern District. (Id.)

This Court can not act on Plaintiff's motion. This Court has no jurisdiction over the case pending in the Northern District or the actions taken by that Court. The proper procedure for Plaintiff to pursue those dismissed claims and parties is to initiate a new action asserting them in the Eastern District.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement (ECF No. 11) is DENIED. Plaintiff may file a new suit in the Eastern District with the claims and parties dismissed by the Northern District.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120320

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.