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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?