Daniels v. Garcia
- 5:24-cv-03476
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Daniels v. Garcia, the court transferred the civil-rights case to the Northern District of California because it was filed in the wrong district.
The transfer affects Zachariah Daniels and A. Garcia and the other defendants by moving the case from the Eastern District of California to the Northern District of California. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Daniels v. Garcia concerns a civil-rights lawsuit filed by Zachariah Daniels, a state prisoner representing himself, against A. Garcia and others. The lawsuit was brought under a federal civil-rights law, and the opinion says the claim arose in Monterey County.
The court concluded that none of the defendants lived in the Eastern District of California and that Monterey County is in the Northern District of California. It therefore found that the case should have been filed in the Northern District and ordered the transfer there.
The court transferred the case on June 3, 2024. The opinion does not clearly identify the magistrate judge by name.
The detailed version
- Daniels v. Garcia · No. 5:24-cv-03476
- June 3, 2024
Background
Zachariah Daniels, identified as a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against A. Garcia and others. The opinion states that the claim arose in Monterey County.
Venue analysis
Federal venue law generally permits a civil action to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court determined that none of the defendants resided in the Eastern District of California and that the claim arose in Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California.
Ruling
The court concluded that the case was filed in the wrong district. Under the federal transfer statute, it ordered that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The opinion did not decide the merits of Daniels’s civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.