Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01919/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01919-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. Arnold
Defendant
James Newman
Plaintiff
Stu Sherman
Defendant
The Department of Corrections
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES NEWMAN,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

STU SHERMAN, E. ARNOLD, et al.

 Defendants.

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

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 

(ASATF@) 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 

Case 1:15-cv-01919-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 07/11/16 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

2

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

Case 1:15-cv-01919-LJO-JLT Document 8 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 2