Hammler v. State

         ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO PROPER VENUE AND JURISDICTION (ECF No. 15) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS (ECF Nos. 12, 14)

          LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Allen Hammler is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

         Plaintiff initiated this action on August 1, 2019. (ECF No. 1.) On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7.)

         On October 2, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 10.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after service of the findings and recommendations. (Id.) Plaintiff timely filed objections on October 24, 2019 (ECF No. 11.)

         On November 2, 2019, the undersigned issued an order adopting the October 2, 2019 findings and recommendations in full and denying Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (ECF No. 12.) The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days from the date of service of the order. (Id.)

         On November 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 13.)

         On December 18, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. (ECF N 14.) The Court also granted Plaintiff an additional twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the order to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. (Id. at 3-4.)

         Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and order transferring case to proper venue and jurisdiction, filed pursuant to the prison mailbox rule on January 4, 2020 and docketed on January 8, 2020. (ECF No. 15.) In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant him a 30-day extension of time to pay the $400.00 filing fee and transfer this case to the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Id.)

         According to Plaintiff, he seeks to transfer venue of this action to the Sacramento Divisio of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California because this Court has no jurisdiction to make any orders or issue any rulings in this case since the events giving rise to Plaintiff's complaint occurred in Sacramento and the named defendants are “residents of Sacramento State Prison.” (Id. at 3.) However, while Plaintiff's complaint states that the violations at issue in the complaint occurred at “Sacrament[o] State Prison, ” the complaint also states that the violations occurred at Kern Valley State Prison and “Calif. State Prison[, ] Corcoran.” (ECF No. 1, at 1.) Additionally, while Plaintiff's complaint states that four of the named defendants are employed at either “Sac. Head-Quarters” or “Sac. State Prison[, ]” Plaintiff's complaint also states that Defendant Soto is employed at Kern Valley State Prison and Defendants Arden and Gamboa are employed at California State Prison, Corcoran. (Id. at 2-3.) Therefore, the Court finds that, since some of the named defendants reside, and some of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's complaint occurred, in the Fresno Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, venue over this action is proper in the Fresno Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Local Rule 120(d). Thus, this Court has full jurisdiction to make orders and issue rulings in this case. Consequently, Plaintiff's request for an order transferring this action to the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is denied.

         Further, Plaintiff requests that the Court grant him a 30-day extension of time to pay the $400.00 filing fee while the Court transfers this case to the Sacramento Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 15, at 1.) However, Plaintiff's request for an order transferring venue of this action has been denied and Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any other reason that would demonstrate good cause for a 30-day extension of time to pay the filing fee. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Therefore, Plaintiff's request for a 30-day extension of time to pay the $400.00 filing fee is denied.

         As noted above, in the Court's November 2, 2019 order, Plaintiff was ordered to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full within twenty-one days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 12, at 4.) On December 18, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff an additional twenty-one days from the date of service of that order to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 14, at 3-4.) Additionally, Plaintiff was warned in the Court's November 2, 2019 and December 18, 2019 orders that failure to pay the filing fee within the specified time would cause this action to be dismissed.

         However, the time allotted to Plaintiff to pay the $400.00 filing fee has expired and Plaintiff has failed to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full. As such, this case ...