Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02572/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02572-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louie Giannini
Plaintiff
Victor B. Kenton
Defendant
Alicemarie H. Stotler
Defendant
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIE GIANNINI,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent;

ALICEMARIE H. STOTLER; VICTOR B.

KENTON, et al., Magistrate Judge,

Real Parties in Interest.. /

No. C 07-2572 PJH (PR)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

FILE STATEMENT

This case was opened when plaintiff sent a document to the court headed “Motion of

Excusable Neglect[;] Notice and Motion in [sic] Request to File an Untimely Motion for a

Change of Venue, Due to Physical and Menta[] Disabilities [;] Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule

60(b)(1)(3).” In an effort to protect plaintiff’s rights it was treated as an attempt to open a

new case here. As the “motion” refers to a civil rights complaint, it was classified as a civil

rights case. The clerk sent plaintiff a notice that he had not been granted leave to proceed

in forma pauperis nor had he paid the $350 filing fee. He was warned to do so within thirty

days or the case would be dismissed. He has written a letter to the court in which he

expresses some confusion about the case number and asks for an extension to time to pay

so he can send the “information” (presumably the case number) to his daughter for her to

pay the fee.

///

Case 4:07-cv-02572-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The court is concerned that plaintiff may not have intended to start a new case in

this district, and so will incur expense to no purpose. The “motion” with which this case

was opened is headed “United States District Court[;] Central District of California[;]

Western Division,” carries a case number which is not from this court (CV05-3690-AHS),

and in substance is a request that a case which apparently is or was pending in the Central

District be transferred to this court. A motion for a change of venue is to be filed in the

district where the case is pending, in this case the Central District, not in the district to

which transfer is sought. Given this, it is unclear why plaintiff sent the motion here; perhaps

it was an informational copy. Because it is unclear whether plaintiff intended to start a new

suit here, he will be afforded an opportunity to clarify his intentions.

Within thirty days of the date this order is entered (the date the clerk has stamped on

the first page), plaintiff shall file with the court a statement either voluntarily dismissing this

case or clearly saying that he wants to continue with it. He should note that this court

cannot grant a motion asking that venue be transferred to this court, and that it is likely that

venue is not proper here as to the “respondent’ or the real parties in interest named in the

caption. If he does not file a statement the case will be dismissed without prejudice. If he

says he wishes to proceed the court will enter an order regarding the fee status and the

necessity of his filing a proper complaint; in the meantime, he need not act further on the

clerk’s notice regarding the fee.

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007. 

 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.07\GIANNINI572.ORD

Case 4:07-cv-02572-PJH Document 5 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2