Coffer v. Crayton
- 5:25-cv-02978
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coffer v. Crayton, the unidentified judge transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights case to Northern California because the events occurred there.
The transfer affects Jonathan Christopher Coffer and the defendants because the case will proceed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California rather than the Eastern District of California.
What happened
Coffer v. Crayton concerns a civil-rights lawsuit filed by Jonathan Christopher Coffer, a state prisoner representing himself, against Eugene Crayton and others. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of California under a federal civil-rights law.
The court explained that federal venue rules generally require a case to be filed where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. The opinion states that none of the defendants resided in the Eastern District and that the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.
The court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The opinion does not identify the magistrate judge by name.
The detailed version
- Coffer v. Crayton · No. 5:25-cv-02978
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
Jonathan Christopher Coffer, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eugene Crayton and other defendants. The case was filed in the Eastern District of California.
Venue analysis
The court cited the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). That statute generally permits a civil case 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 found that none of the defendants resided in the Eastern District of California. It also found that the claim arose in Monterey 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.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the proper district when doing so serves the interest of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The opinion does not identify the magistrate judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.