Jones v. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center
- 5:25-cv-09293
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Jimmie Earl Jones, III v. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center, the court transferred the section 1983 case to the Northern District of California for proper venue.
The transfer affects Jimmie Earl Jones, III and the defendants by moving the case from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California. The opinion does not identify the individual defendants beyond the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and “et al.”
What happened
Jimmie Earl Jones, III, a state prisoner representing himself, filed a civil-rights case under section 1983 and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion says the case arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California.
The court concluded that the case should have been filed in the Northern District of California rather than the Eastern District of California. It transferred the matter there under the federal venue statute.
The court ordered the transfer on October 20, 2025. The opinion’s judge name is not readable in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center · No. 5:25-cv-09293
- Oct. 21, 2025
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. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Venue
The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The opinion states that Jones’s claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California. It therefore concluded that the action should have been filed in that district.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district when doing so serves the interests of justice. The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The provided opinion text does not clearly identify the magistrate judge by name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.