Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01057/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01057-4/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB (PC)

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)

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 4
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

27

28

2

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 No. 

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 Division 

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 

Case 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 4
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

27

28

3

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 cannot proceed. 

Therefore, this matter will be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time and order transferring case to proper venue 

and jurisdiction, (ECF No. 15), is DENIED;

Case 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 4
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

27

28

4

2. This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with the Court’s November 2, 2019 and December 18, 2019 orders, (ECF 

Nos. 12, 14), and his failure to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01057-LJO-SAB Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 4