Lupercio v. Attorney

N.D. California

Lupercio v. Attorney

DecidedMarch 27, 2023

Docket4:23-cv-01452

StatusUnknown

This text of Lupercio v. Attorney (Lupercio v. Attorney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lupercio v. Attorney, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON LUPERCIO NAVARRO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00413-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.

14 ATTORNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It appears that plaintiff’s complaint is attacking the legitimacy of 19 his conviction; to pursue his claims, he may need to file a habeas corpus petition. He is currently 20 imprisoner at San Quentin State Prison, which is located in Marin County. Marin County is 21 located in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 22 This action should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 23 California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong 24 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 25 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 26 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the U.S. District 27 Court for the Northern District of California.

28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | | — Dated: _ March 27, 2023 issn (aioe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMON LUPERCIO NAVARRO, Case No. 2:23-cv-00413-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.

14 ATTORNEY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It appears that plaintiff’s complaint is attacking the legitimacy of 19 his conviction; to pursue his claims, he may need to file a habeas corpus petition. He is currently 20 imprisoner at San Quentin State Prison, which is located in Marin County. Marin County is 21 located in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 22 This action should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 23 California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong 24 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 25 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 26 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the U.S. District 27 Court for the Northern District of California.

28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 | | — Dated: _ March 27, 2023 issn (aioe 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lupercio v. Attorney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lupercio-v-attorney-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack