Buttigieg

(PS) Fernandez v. Buttigieg

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 25, 20232:23-cv-01165California948 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 GRACE FERNANDEZ No. 2:23-cv-01165-DAD-CKD (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER PETE BUTTIGIEG, Defendant. 15 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). However, because venue does not lie in this district, the court orders that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. I. Complaint Plaintiff sues the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (currently, Pete Buttigieg) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII that arose during plaintiff’s employment with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in Renton, Washington. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff was stationed in Rancho Cordova, California between October 31, 2009…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.