Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate
- Sallie Kim
- 3:21-cv-06399
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate, Judge Oberto transferred the case to the Northern District of California because venue was improper.
The transfer affected Shannon O. Murphy Esq. Sr. dba Sheetmetal & Associates and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate by moving the case from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California; the court did not decide the claims.
What happened
Shannon O. Murphy Esq. Sr., doing business as Sheetmetal & Associates, filed the case against the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate while representing himself. The complaint did not allege facts against the defendant and referred instead to an earlier related proceeding in the Northern District of California.
The court explained that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the plaintiff was located in the Northern District, the federal agency was treated as residing in the District of Columbia, and the complaint did not show that relevant events occurred in the Eastern District.
Judge Sheila K. Oberto ordered the case transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the interest of justice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Murphy Esq. Sr. v. U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate · No. 3:21-cv-06399
- Sallie Kim
- Aug. 18, 2021
Background
Shannon O. Murphy Esq. Sr., doing business as Sheetmetal & Associates, filed a complaint and jury-trial demand against the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate. Murphy proceeded without a lawyer. The complaint did not contain allegations against the defendant. Instead, it stated that Murphy wished to add facts concerning an already-filed complaint and directed the court to an earlier related proceeding in the Northern District of California.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which governs venue when a defendant is a federal agency. The court stated that federal agencies such as the IRS are treated as residing in the District of Columbia for venue purposes. The complaint indicated that Murphy was located in Pittsburg, California, within the Northern District of California. Because the complaint contained no allegations showing where the relevant events or omissions occurred, the court found that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resided in the Eastern District and that the complaint did not establish that venue was proper there.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district in the interest of justice. The court found that the Northern District of California was appropriate because Murphy resided there and the complaint indicated an intent to supplement an earlier related proceeding pending there. Judge Sheila K. Oberto ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The order did not reach the merits of Murphy's claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.