Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03094/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-03094-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAWNA HARTMANN & 

CAREN HILL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-3094 DAD P

vs.

CAL. DEP’T CORRS. &

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiffs, two state prisoners proceeding through counsel, have filed a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter came before the court on defendants’ motion

for intradistrict transfer. On January 8, 2010, the undersigned heard oral arguments from the

parties. 

For the reasons discussed at the hearing, the court finds that this action arises out

of Madera 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 be transferred to the

proper division of the court. Accordingly, the court will transfer this action to the Fresno

Division of the court. 

Case 2:08-cv-03094-DAD Document 42 Filed 01/08/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Defendants in this case have filed two separate motions to dismiss pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On December 23, 2009, the court granted

plaintiffs an extension of time to January 22, 2010, to file their opposition to defendants’

motions. The motions to dismiss are currently noticed for hearing on February 5, 2010. This

court will not vacate or continue the hearing date on those motions at this time. Instead, the court

will allow the newly assigned magistrate judge in the Fresno Division of the court to proceed

with the case as scheduled or to modify the hearing date as desired.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ December 3, 2009 motion for intradistrict transfer (Doc. No. 31)

is granted; 

2. Defendants’ January 5, 2010 motion to strike (Doc. No. 40) is denied;

3. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

4. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: January 8, 2010.

DAD:9

hart3094.22

Case 2:08-cv-03094-DAD Document 42 Filed 01/08/10 Page 2 of 2