Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01726/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01726-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Anaya
Plaintiff
CDCR
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PETER ANAYA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CDCR, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1726 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

 Although the original complaint does not indicate where the alleged violations of 

plaintiff’s civil rights took place, plaintiff’s amended complaints indicate that they took place at 

the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison in Corcoran. ECF No. 47 at 

5, ECF No. 79 at 3; ECF No. 85 at 2. The alleged violations therefore took place in Kings 

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, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the 

court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the court. 

//// 

Case 2:15-cv-01726-AC Document 93 Filed 01/12/16 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 

27 

28 

2

In transferring this case, the court notes that plaintiff initiated this case on August 10, 

2015. ECF No. 1. Even though this case has not yet been screened, as of the filing of this order 

there are over ninety docket entries, all but three of which are documents filed by plaintiff. The 

Eastern District of California maintains one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation, a significant 

portion of which is comprised of pro se inmate cases such as this one. This sometimes causes 

unavoidable delays in the resolution of individual matters and plaintiff’s filing of numerous, 

duplicative documents and requests only slows the process further. 

In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis or any of his other pending motions. Plaintiff shall not file 

anything else until the Fresno Division has an opportunity to screen the complaint.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff’s pending motions; 

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

California sitting in Fresno; and 

 3. 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 

4. Plaintiff shall not file anything else until the Fresno Division screens the complaint. 

DATED: January 11, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-01726-AC Document 93 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2