Ivan A. Zamora Blanco v. Gavin Newsom, Governor

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IVAN A. ZAMORA BLANCO, AK3446, Case No. 25-cv-08292-SK (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v.

10 GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor, 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at San Quentin Rehabilitation Center (SQRC), 13 submitted to the Court for filing via the postal mail a pro se prisoner complaint for damages under 14 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his federal rights in connection with a stabbing he suffered 15 in March 2012 while he was incarcerated at former state prison Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) 16 in Tracy, San Joaquin County. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff resubmitted the complaint via email, as 17 required by General Order 76, but failed to include the attachment to the complaint that he 18 submitted via the postal mail. See ECF No. 4. In the interest of justice, the Court will consider 19 the attachment to the complaint Plaintiff submitted via the postal mail part of the complaint he 20 resubmitted via email and affirm that this action remains one for damages for violations of 21 Plaintiff’s federal rights in connection with a stabbing he suffered in March 2012 while he was incarcerated at former state prison DVI and that the only named defendant is Governor Gavin 22 Newsom. See ECF No. 4 at 1-2; ECF No. 1-1 at 4-15. 23 A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in 24 San Joaquin County and the only named defendant resides in Sacramento County. San Joaquin 25 and Sacramento counties both lie within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 84(b). Venue therefore properly lies in the Eastern District. See id. § 1391(b).1 27 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District 3 of California. 4 The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: November 6, 2025 f ( □ la, . 7 SALLIE KIM 8 United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 29 Justice Act of 2020. See ECF No. 1-1 at 14. Because Plaintiff's underlying criminal conviction is 26 || from Stanislaus County Superior Court, any federal claim challenging the validity of said conviction and/or resulting incarceration must be brought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 07 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California, in whose venue Stanislaus County lies. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1) (petition challenging state conviction or sentence should be 2g || brought in district of conviction or sentencing rather than in district of confinement); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (same).