Padilla v. Lumpkin, Director of Texas Prison System

Background

This pro se civil case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Ismael H. Padilla filed an objection to that transfer. The court construed the objection as a motion asking it to reconsider the transfer order.

Legal standard

Because the transfer order did not end the case, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which allows a court to revise an order that does not terminate an action before judgment. The court explained that reconsideration may be appropriate based on newly discovered evidence, clear error or manifest injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.

The court also applied Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9. That rule requires a party seeking reconsideration to obtain permission and specifically show a material difference in fact or law that could not have been known earlier with reasonable diligence, new material facts or a change in law after the order, or a manifest failure to consider material facts previously presented.

Padilla’s arguments and the court’s ruling

Padilla asserted that there was a “conspiracy” between federal courts and Texas state courts to alter his arrest record to show that he was arrested on marijuana charges at age 18 rather than age 17. The court found those allegations unrelated to the venue and personal-jurisdiction considerations underlying the transfer order and said they did not warrant reconsideration.

Padilla also asserted that a civil action may be filed in any United States district court. The court rejected that assertion, explaining that the venue provisions in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) limit the district courts in which a civil action may be filed.

Judge Jeffrey S. White concluded that Padilla had not shown grounds for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) or Civil Local Rule 7-9. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.