Newman v. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: JAMES NEWMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STU SHERMAN, E…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 8, 2016

1:15-cv-01919-LJO-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 8, 2016)

Opinion

1:15-cv-01919-LJO-JLT (PC)

07-08-2016

JAMES NEWMAN, Plaintiff, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STU SHERMAN, E. ARNOLD, et al. Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, James Newman, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on December 28, 2015. Compl., Doc. 1.

Plaintiff is an inmate at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison ("SATF") in Corcoran, California. Doc. 2. However, Plaintiff names as defendants both the wardens of SATF and Solano State Prison ("SSP"), where he was previously incarcerated. Plaintiff delineates the following claims: (1) a Fourth Amendment claim based on his allegation that he was forced to submit to urinalysis without reasonable suspicion, and (2) an Eighth Amendment claim regarding the conditions he endured as punishment for violating prison rules related to the urinalysis, including that he was denied medical care during this period. While the Complaint does not explain what conduct is alleged to have occurred at which facility, Plaintiff attached a copy of the Rules Violation Report that documents that the urinalysis, and at least some of the disciplinary proceedings that followed, occurred at SSP. Compl. at Ct. R. 8-10. Thus, some, if not all, of the alleged violations took place in Solano County, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the Complaint should have been filed in the Sacramento Division, pursuant to Local Rule 120(d).

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting in Sacramento, and

2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at

United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8 , 2016

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE