Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 7, 2025

Coffer v. Oliveros

Judge
Austin
Docket
5:25-cv-04140
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureCivil RightsSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

Coffer v. Oliveros: Judge Austin transferred the civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because venue was improper.

Who this affects

Jonathan Christopher Coffer and the defendants named as Officer Oliveros and the other defendants; the case will proceed in the Northern District of California instead of the Eastern District of California.

What happened

In Coffer v. Oliveros, Jonathan Christopher Coffer, a state prisoner representing himself, brought a civil-rights case under a federal law allowing claims against government officials. The opinion does not describe the underlying allegations.

The court found that none of the defendants lived in the Eastern District of California and that the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District. Because the case was filed in the wrong district, the court transferred it rather than deciding the claims.

Judge Gary S. Austin ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The detailed version

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

Case
Coffer v. Oliveros · No. 5:25-cv-04140
Judge
Austin
Date
May 7, 2025

Background

Jonathan Christopher Coffer, identified as a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion does not describe the specific claims or events underlying the action beyond stating that the claim arose in Monterey County.

Venue analysis

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the federal venue statute. That statute generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some 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 action should have been filed in the Northern District.

Disposition

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 Gary S. Austin ordered that the matter 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 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.