In re Michael David Grant

Filing 7

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 7/19/2021. ***Civil Case Terminated. (kcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Case 4:21-cv-03730-PJH Document 7 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL DAVID GRANT,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 21-cv-03730-PJH
ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, AND
REHABILITATION (CDCR),

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4

Defendant.

13
14

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. Plaintiff is

15

incarcerated in the Central District of California and raises claims against defendants in

16

that district. He states that the Internal Revenue Service sent the prison a debit card with

17

his economic impact payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

18

Economic Security Act (The “CARES Act”), Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

He contends that prison officials are holding his debit card along with the debit cards of
other inmates at his prison, because debit cards are not an authorized form of payment
allowed for prisoners. For relief, he seeks prison officials to provide him his funds.
In Scholl v. Mnuchin, 494 F. Supp. 3d 661 (N.D. Cal. 2020) this court found that
the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service could not withhold advance
refunds or credits to individuals solely because they were incarcerated. Id. at 692. To
the extent plaintiff requests to proceed with his claim in this court and the Scholl case,
any such request is denied. Plaintiff’s claims involve entirely different defendants located
in the Central District of California. Plaintiff’s claim involves interference by prison
officials in plaintiff receiving his EIP, not the issuance of funds by the Scholl defendants

Case 4:21-cv-03730-PJH Document 7 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2

1
2

and the CARES Act.
Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1391(b). This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

4

Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In light of the transfer, the court

5

will not rule on plaintiff’s motions (Docket Nos. 1, 4) which are VACATED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2021

8
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2