(PS) Manning v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ANTHONY L. MANNING, No. 2:19-cv-00494 TLN AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant.

17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. The case was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s motion to transfer or dismiss. ECF No. 50. This motion is not properly noticed pursuant to Local Rule 230 therefore will be STRICKEN.

21 In light of plaintiff’s pro se status and in the interest of judicial economy, the court notes for plaintiff’s benefit that the venue transfer statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1404 governs transfer between district courts; it does not allow the district court to transfer matters to an appellate court. The court further notes that, if defendant consents, plaintiff is free to voluntarily dismiss the remainder of this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(A)(ii), though any subsequent action would re- start the filing date and may impact whether or not the claims are time barred under any applicable statute of limitations.

28 //// 1 If plaintiff elects not to voluntarily dismiss his remaining claims, this case will continue | on the remaining claims while plaintiffs interlocutory appeal is pending with the Ninth Circuit.

3 || “(DJuring an interlocutory appeal, the district court retains jurisdiction to address aspects of the | case that are not the subject of the appeal.” United States v. Pitner, 307 F.3d 1178, 1183, n.5 (9th || Cir. 2002).

6 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the motion to transfer or dismiss, ECF No. 50, | is hereby STRICKEN without prejudice to a stipulation or motion for voluntary dismissal.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 | DATED: December 19, 2019 ~ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE