United States District Court, E.D. California
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 ...