Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05230/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05230-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERROD HERNDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUDGE SUTRO, and MARIN COUNTY,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01648-LJO-SKO

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Judge Sutro1and Marin County 

seeking "clemency" and invoking the Emancipation Proclamation. There are no other allegations 

in the complaint. However, Plaintiff has filed several cases in this division of the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of California asserting claims against Napa State Hospital and 

certain agencies in Sacramento. (See Herndon v. Napa State Hospital, 1:15-cv-1584-DLB (PC) 

(E.D. Cal. 2015), transferred to the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:15-cv-04948; 

Herndon v. Jovel, No. 1:15-cv-01463-GSA (E.D. Cal. 2015), transferred to Sacramento Division, 

 

1

Judge Sutro was a judge for the Marin County Superior Court until 2010.

Case 4:15-cv-05230-HSG Document 3 Filed 11/10/15 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

Case No. 2:15-cv-02065). Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional 

Center in Elk Grove, California. Based on the various cases filed, it appears that Plaintiff may be 

seeking to expunge certain prior records. See Herdon v. Jovel, 1:15-cv-1463-GSA, Doc. 1.

It appears that the defendants in this case are located outside the geographical boundaries 

of this district and the events related to a judicial proceeding in Marin County are also outside the 

geographical boundaries of this district. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, 

other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any 

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of 

the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any 

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, neither of the defendants reside in this district. The claim apparently arose in 

Marin County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim should 

have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district 

to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 

1974). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-05230-HSG Document 3 Filed 11/10/15 Page 2 of 2