Lawrence v. Newsom
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:22-cv-05056
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lawrence v. Newsom, Judge Westmore denied Lawrence’s request to keep the case in Northern California and transferred it to Eastern California.
Rishardo Lawrence’s case will proceed in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Lawrence v. Newsom, Rishardo Lawrence filed a complaint concerning retirement damages and the failure to grant him a medical parole hearing. He asked the court to keep the case in the Northern District of California.
Lawrence acknowledged that the case should have been filed in the Eastern District of California. He argued that the Eastern District had too many cases filed by inmates, but he cited no authority allowing the court to keep a case filed in the wrong district.
Judge Westmore denied Lawrence’s request to retain the case in the Northern District of California and transferred the case to the Eastern District of California under the federal venue statute.
The detailed version
- Lawrence v. Newsom · No. 4:22-cv-05056
- Kandis Westmore
- Oct. 31, 2022
Background
Rishardo Lawrence, an inmate at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, California, filed a complaint concerning retirement damages and the failure to grant him a medical parole hearing. He then filed a request asking the court to retain the case in the Northern District of California rather than transfer or refile it in the Eastern District of California. Lawrence argued that the Eastern District was burdened by the number of cases filed by inmates at two prisons.
Venue analysis
Federal venue law generally allows a case to proceed in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court noted that venue may be considered by the court before a defendant files a responsive pleading. Lawrence acknowledged that the case should have been filed in the Eastern District of California and cited no authority allowing the court to retain a case filed in an improper district.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a district court may dismiss it or transfer it to the proper federal court in the interest of justice. The court DENIED Lawrence’s request to retain the case in the Northern District of California and TRANSFERS the case to the Eastern District of California. Judge Kandis Westmore issued the order. The court also stated that venue orders are interlocutory and are not appealable before final judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.