Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2025

Coffer v. Crayton

Judge
McAuliffe
Docket
5:25-cv-02670
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Coffer v. Crayton, Judge McAuliffe transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because it belonged there.

Who this affects

The transfer affects Jonathan Christopher Coffer’s civil-rights action and the named defendants by moving the case from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California. The opinion does not identify the defendants beyond “Crayton, et al.”

What happened

In Coffer v. Crayton, Jonathan Christopher Coffer, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against state officials. The case was filed in the Eastern District of California.

The court explained that federal venue rules generally require a case to be filed where a defendant resides or where the events occurred. It concluded that the claims appeared to arise in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe ordered the case transferred to the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The order resolved the filing location, not the underlying civil-rights claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Coffer v. Crayton · No. 5:25-cv-02670
Judge
McAuliffe
Date
Mar. 18, 2025

Background

Jonathan Christopher Coffer, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion does not describe the substance of his claims.

Venue Analysis

The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally permits a civil action to be filed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court stated that Coffer’s claims appeared to have arisen in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. It therefore concluded that the case should have been filed in that district rather than the Eastern District of California.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district in the interest of justice. Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The opinion did not rule on the merits of the civil-rights claims.

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.