(SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANJI LYNN BAKER, SR., No. 2:23-cv-1604 DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff has filed a complaint seeking judicial review of a final decision of the 19 Commissioner denying plaintiff’s application for benefits and an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. 21 Although this action has been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United States 22 District Court for the Eastern District of California, the complaint alleges that plaintiff’s primary 23 residence is in Fresno County, which is part of the Fresno Division of the United States District 24 Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d). 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 26 division of this court in accordance with Local Rule 120(d) may, on the court’s own motion, be 27 transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the 28 Fresno Division of this court for all further proceedings. 1 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern 3 District of California sitting in Fresno; and 4 2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned by the 5 Clerk of the Court and shall be filed at1: 6 United States District Court 7 Eastern District of California 8 2500 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721 9 10 DATED: October 3, 2023 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DLB:6 22 DLB1\orders.soc sec\baker1604.transfer.ord 23 24 1 On September 25, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel filed a status report stating that plaintiff’s motion to 25 proceed in forma pauperis “has been awaiting action since August 3, 2023,” and asking that it be “given a higher priority[.]” (ECF No. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel is advised that the “Eastern 26 District of California is suffering from an ongoing judicial emergency” and an “overwhelming 27 caseload[.]” McCoy v. City of Vallejo, No. 2:19-cv-1191 JAM CKD, 2021 WL 492535, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2021). Such filings only add the court’s work. Plaintiff is advised that future 28 filings in this vein will be looked upon with disfavor.