Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00224/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00224-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Patrick R. Donahoe
Defendant
Deidra A. Lintz
Plaintiff

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

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEIDRA A. LINTZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK R. DONAHOE,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-0224 JAM KJN PS (TEMP)

ORDER

Plaintiff Deidra Lintz is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the 

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

On October 5, 2015, the previously assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order transferring 

this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.1 (Dkt. No. 

20.) This action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California on October 6, 2015. (Dkt. No. 21.) 

On October 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 22.) On 

October 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of withdrawal of her motion for reconsideration, (Dkt. 

No. 23), along with objections to the order transferring this action, (Dkt. No. 24), and a petition 

for writ of mandamus. (Dkt. No. 25.) 

 

1

 This action was reassigned to the undersigned on December 9, 2015. (Dkt. No. 26.) 

Case 2:14-cv-00224-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 12/21/15 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

Plaintiff is advised that because this case has been transferred, this court lack jurisdiction 

over this action, even to review the order transferring the case. See Chrysler Credit Corp. v. 

Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516-17 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Once the files in a case are 

transferred physically to the court in the transferee district, the transferor court loses all 

jurisdiction over the case, including the power to review the transfer.”); Benjamin v. Bixby, No. 

1:08-CV-1025 AWI DLB, 2009 WL 2588870, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009) (“the Ninth Circuit 

has adopted the rule that a § 1404 transfer ends the jurisdiction of both the transferor court and 

the corresponding appellate court when the motion is granted and the papers are entered in the 

transferee court’s records”); PPG Industries, Inc. v. Webster Auto Parts, Inc., 849 F. Supp. 8, 9 

(D. Mass. 1994) (“the general rule has been that a district court ordering a transfer loses 

jurisdiction once the order has been executed by forwarding the record”).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus will not be considered by this court. 

See Kurtz v. Intelius, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-1009 JAM JFM, 2011 WL 4048645, at *3 (E.D. Cal.

Sept. 9, 2011) (“In light of this Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Transfer, all other 

pending motions will not be considered by this Court and may be considered in the Central 

District.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015

lintz0224.man.den.ord.docx

Case 2:14-cv-00224-JAM-KJN Document 27 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 2