Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 25, 2024

Hill v. Tom

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:24-cv-06812
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeSection 1983
In one sentence

In CYMEYON HILL v. TOM, Judge Brennan transferred the civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because the claim arose there.

Who this affects

Cymeyon Hill and the defendants named as Tom, et al.; the case will proceed in the Northern District of California rather than the Eastern District of California.

What happened

In CYMEYON HILL v. TOM, Cymeyon Hill, a civil detainee representing himself, filed a civil-rights lawsuit under federal law against Tom and others. Hill also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The court explained that federal law generally requires a case to be filed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. The order states that Hill’s claim arose in Napa County, which is in the Northern District of California.

Judge Edmund F. Brennan ordered that the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hill v. Tom · No. 4:24-cv-06812
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Sept. 25, 2024

Background

Cymeyon Hill, identified as a civil detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Tom and other defendants. Hill also filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Venue

The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute identifies districts where a civil action may be filed, including a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. The order states that Hill’s claim arose in Napa County, which is located in the Northern District of California. The court therefore concluded that the action should have been filed there rather than in the Eastern District of California.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not resolve the merits of Hill’s civil-rights claims or rule on the filing-fee application.

Effect

The case was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California. The opinion does not state any further ruling on the claims or identify the defendants’ responses to them.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.