Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05684/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05684-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ORDER OF TRANSFER No. C-06-05684 RMW

MAG

E-Filed: 2/12/07 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BYRON ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARYLAND STATE POLICE

HEADQUARTERS and TROOPER FIRST

CLASS HERNDON,

Defendants.

No. C-06-05684 RMW

ORDER OF TRANSFER

[Re Docket Nos. 16, 17]

Plaintiff Byron Anderson, proceeding pro se, claims that he was physically and mentally

damaged after being slammed into a barbed wire fence by a Maryland State Trooper on September 24,

2005 while he was living in Englewood, Maryland. He has named the Maryland State Police

Headquarters and Trooper First Class Tyrone Herndon as defendants. Before the court are two motions,

both filed or renoticed on November 6, 2006: 1) a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Maryland State

Police Headquarters and 2) a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant Trooper First

Class Tyrone Herndon. As of the date of the January 26, 2007 hearing, plaintiff had not filed an

opposition to either defendant's motion.

Case 5:06-cv-05684-RMW Document 25 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 4
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 In the alternative, both defendants assert immunity from suit as to plaintiff's claims

under the Eleventh Amendment. 

ORDER OF TRANSFER No. C-06-05684 RMW

MAG 2

Both defendants' motions are premised on the lack of personal jurisdiction.1 A court lacking

personal jurisdiction is powerless to adjudicate. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,

583 (1999). The court may obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant if it finds that either specific

or general jurisdiction exists. For either specific or general personal jurisdiction to exist, defendants

must have certain minimum contacts with the forum state. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,

316 (1945). Plaintiff's complaint alleges no facts whatsoever that occur in California, nor does the

complaint demonstrate that either of the defendants has contacts with California. Both as pleaded and

as argued by the plaintiff at the January 26, 2007 hearing on the defendants' motions, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's claims against the Maryland State Police Headquarters and Trooper

Herndon. 

This court can, however, transfer this case to an appropriate district. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),

"the district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall

dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could

have been brought." 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). The United States Supreme Court, interpreting § 1406(a)

stated, "[n]othing in that language indicates that the operation of the section was intended to be limited

to actions in which the transferring court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants." Goldlawr, Inc.

v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465 (1962). The Court concluded that the purpose of the statute was to avoid

"the injustice which had often resulted to plaintiffs from dismissal of their actions merely because they

had made an erroneous guess with regard to the existence of some elusive fact of the kind upon which

venue provisions often turn." Id. at 466. Accordingly, it held that § 1406(a) authorizes the transfer of

cases, "however wrong the plaintiff may have been in filing his case as to venue, whether the court in

which it was filed had personal jurisdiction over the defendants or not." Id.

A case in which venue is improper may be transferred, rather than dismissed, if transfer is in the

interest of justice. See District No. 1 Pacific Coast District v. Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 1982).

Whether a transfer or a dismissal is in the interest of justice rests within the discretion of the district

court. Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing Cook v. Fox, 537

Case 5:06-cv-05684-RMW Document 25 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER OF TRANSFER No. C-06-05684 RMW

MAG 3

F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1976)). There is no indication that plaintiff's choice of court was anything other

than an error based on incomplete understanding of the court's jurisdictional requirements. Therefore,

in the interest of justice, this court will transfer the case to the District of Maryland, a district in which

this case could have originally been brought under the facts pleaded.

II. ORDER

The defendants are located and the actions complained of occurred in Maryland, this case is

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Because it lacks

jurisdiction to proceed, this court will not rule upon defendants' pending motions. The clerk shall

terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the District of Maryland. 

DATED: 2/6/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-05684-RMW Document 25 Filed 02/12/07 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER OF TRANSFER No. C-06-05684 RMW

MAG 4

A copy of this order was mailed on 2/12/07 to:

Plaintiff:

Byron Anderson

Post Office Box 381 

Jolon, CA 93928

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Donald Eugene Hoffman 

Office of the Attorney General 

Maryland State Police 

1201 Reisterstown Road 

Pikesville, MD 21208 

Paul T. Hammerness 

Attorney at Law 

455 Golden Gate Avenue 

Suite 11000 

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:06-cv-05684-RMW Document 25 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4