(PC) Ramirez v. Case Records Director

I. INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint in the Sacramento division of this 19 Court on February 8, 2023. (Doc. 1.) 20 On February 13, 2023, Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney issued an order transferring 21 the action from the Sacramento division to the Fresno division because Plaintiff’s complaint 22 alleges violations occurring in Madera County. (Doc. 3.) 23 On February 15, 2023, this Court issued its Order to Submit Application to Proceed In 24 Forma Pauperis or Pay Filing Fee Within 45 Days. (Doc. 5.) 25 On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Procee[d] with lawsuit 26 claim & affidavit done.” (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff appears to contend that he has “a motion to [appeal] 27 because he “didn’t consent” to magistrate jurisdiction, and that “the affidavit when threw today to 28 procee[d] IFP motion done by me.”1 (Id.) II. DISCUSSION AND ORDER The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the…