Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01071/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01071-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLES B. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00417-EPG (PC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING THE CASE

TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT

Plaintiff Douglas Murphy appears to be a pretrial detainee1proceeding pro se in this civil 

rights action filed on April 8, 2024 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Along with his complaint (ECF 

No. 1), Plaintiff also filed a request—but not the application—to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2) and a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3).

In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of his civil rights by defendants during his 

state criminal proceedings, which appear to be ongoing. (See generally ECF No. 1; see also ECF 

No. 3 at 6). The alleged violations took place in Calaveras 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. 

1 Plaintiff states he is being held in Calaveras County Jail (ECF No. 1 at 2) and references ongoing 

state criminal proceedings (ECF No. 3 at 6, discussing “a scheduled court appearance in the underlying 

criminal matter” on April 12, 2024). However, Plaintiff also mentions extradition from Connecticut (ECF 

No. 1 at 2), and it is not clear whether he was merely detained in Connecticut or was already serving a 

prison sentence.

Case 2:24-cv-01071-AC Document 4 Filed 04/10/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 

division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the 

court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. This Court will not 

rule on Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) or the motion to appoint 

counsel (ECF No. 3). 

Accordingly, IT IS 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

3. This Court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 

No. 2) or motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 3). These motions remain pending. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01071-AC Document 4 Filed 04/10/24 Page 2 of 2