1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE WHITFIELD, Case No. 21-cv-06971-PJH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER

9

10 11

12 13 This case was opened when plaintiff, an Arkansas state prisoner proceeding pro 14 se, wrote a letter to the court. In an effort to protect his rights, it was filed as a new case. 15 Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Eastern District of Arkansas and raises claims against 16 defendants in that district. He states that the Internal Revenue Service sent to him at his prison his economic impact payment (“EIP”) pursuant to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 17 Economic Security Act (The “CARES Act”),

Stat. 281 (2020). 18 He contends that the state passed a law mandating that the EIP to prisoners would first 19 be used to pay court fines, fees and restitution. For relief, plaintiff seeks the full funds he 20 received to appear in his prison account. 21 In Scholl v. Mnuchin,

(N.D. Cal. 2020) this court found that 22 the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service could not withhold advance 23 refunds or credits to individuals solely because they were incarcerated.

. To 24 the extent plaintiff requests to proceed with his claim in this court and the Scholl case, 25 any such request is denied. Plaintiff’s claims involve entirely different defendants located 26 in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiff’s claim involves interference by the state 27 legislature and prison officials in plaintiff receiving his EIP, not the issuance of funds by 1 the Scholl defendants and the CARES Act. 2 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 Eastern District of Arkansas. See

(a). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 12, 2021 7 8 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27