Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2025

Blanco v. Newsom

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
3:25-cv-08292
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Zamora Blanco v. Newsom, Judge Kim transferred the prisoner’s civil-rights damages case to the Eastern District of California because venue was proper there.

Who this affects

Ivan A. Zamora Blanco’s damages action against Gavin Newsom was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the court did not decide the merits of the claims.

What happened

Ivan A. Zamora Blanco, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, sued Governor Gavin Newsom for damages under a federal civil-rights law, alleging violations connected to a March 2012 stabbing at a former state prison in San Joaquin County.

The court found that a substantial part of the events occurred in San Joaquin County and that the only named defendant resides in Sacramento County. Both counties are within the Eastern District of California.

Judge Sallie Kim ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under the federal venue statute. The order did not decide whether Zamora Blanco’s claims were legally valid.

The detailed version

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

Case
Blanco v. Newsom · No. 3:25-cv-08292
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
Nov. 6, 2025

Background

Ivan A. Zamora Blanco, identified as a prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, submitted a complaint for damages without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged violations of his federal rights related to a stabbing he suffered in March 2012 while incarcerated at the former Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, San Joaquin County. Gavin Newsom, Governor, was the only named defendant.

Zamora Blanco first sent the complaint and an attachment by mail. He later resubmitted the complaint by email as required by General Order 76 but did not include the attachment. The court treated the mailed attachment as part of the resubmitted complaint and confirmed that the action sought damages based on the alleged federal-rights violations.

Venue Analysis

The court determined that a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred in San Joaquin County. It also stated that the only named defendant resides in Sacramento County. Because both counties are within the Eastern District of California, the court concluded that venue properly lies there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The opinion text also contains a fragment stating that a federal challenge to the validity of an underlying state conviction or resulting incarceration would need to be brought as a petition challenging the conviction in the Eastern District of California. The operative order, however, treated this action as a damages action under § 1983 and transferred it based on venue.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court ordered that the action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. The clerk was directed to transfer the matter forthwith. The order did not rule on the merits of the alleged federal-rights violations.

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.