(PC) Hendrix v. Diaz

Opinion

JAMAR L. HENDRIX, No. 2:20-cv-1739 KJN P Plaintiff, v. ORDER RALPH DIAZ, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On September 10, 2020, this action was transferred to the Central District of California, where plaintiff’s claims arose, and two of the defendants are located, and this case was closed. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the transfer order. Under the circumstances presented here, this case should remain in the Central District of California. As an initial matter, this court no longer has jurisdiction over this action. See Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987). Transfer of this action, and the end of this court’s jurisdiction, was effective when the Central District Court docketed the case on September 17, 2020. See id. at 733. The appropriate course of action for plaintiff, if any, is to move the Central District Court to transfer the action back to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“the appropriate course of action when physical transfer has already taken place . . . is a new proceeding seeking retransfer in the transferee court”). This case was closed on September 10, 2020. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 7) is denied. Dated: February 22, 2021 Fens Arn fhend1739.den UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE