Jones v. Murphey
- Delaney
- 5:24-cv-07831
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jones v. Murphey, Judge Delaney transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because the claim arose there.
Jimmie Earl Jones, III and the defendants are affected because the case was moved from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the order did not decide the civil-rights claims.
What happened
In Jones v. Murphey, Jimmie Earl Jones, III, a state prisoner without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights case against Bret Murphey and other defendants.
The court said the claim arose in Humboldt County, which is in the Northern District of California. It therefore transferred the case there instead of deciding it in the Eastern District of California.
Judge Carolyn K. Delaney ordered the transfer under the federal venue law. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Murphey · No. 5:24-cv-07831
- Delaney
- Nov. 5, 2024
Background
Jimmie Earl Jones, III, identified in the opinion as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Bret Murphey and other defendants.
Venue Analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal venue statute. The opinion states that the claim arose in Humboldt County, which is in the Northern District of California. The court therefore concluded that the case should have been filed in the Northern District of California.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district when doing so serves the interests of justice. Judge Carolyn K. Delaney ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order resolved venue only and did not decide the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.