(PC) Hendrix v. Diaz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMAR L. HENDRIX, No. 2:20-cv-1739 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On September 10, 2020, this action was 18 transferred to the Central District of California, where plaintiff’s claims arose, and two of the 19 defendants are located, and this case was closed. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion for relief 20 from the transfer order. 21 Under the circumstances presented here, this case should remain in the Central District of 22 California. As an initial matter, this court no longer has jurisdiction over this action. See Lou v. 23 Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987). Transfer of this action, and the end of this court’s 24 jurisdiction, was effective when the Central District Court docketed the case on September 17, 25 2020. See id. at 733. The appropriate course of action for plaintiff, if any, is to move the Central 26 District Court to transfer the action back to the Eastern District of California, Sacramento 27 Division. See Posnanski v. Gibney, 421 F.3d 977, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Starnes v. 28 McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“the appropriate course of action when physical 1 | transfer has already taken place . . . is a new proceeding seeking retransfer in the transferee 2 | court”). 3 This case was closed on September 10, 2020. Plaintiff is advised that documents filed by 4 | plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future 5 | filings. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 7) is denied. 7 | Dated: February 22, 2021 Fens Arn 9 KENDALL J. NE 10 fhend1739.den UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28