Historical and Revision NotesBased on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 145 and section 76 of title 16, Conservation (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 72, 36 Stat. 1107; May 16, 1916, ch. 122, 39 Stat. 122; June 2, 1920, ch. 218, § 2, 41 Stat. 731; Mar. 1, 1929, ch. 421, 45 Stat. 1424).
A provision relating to the place for maintenance of a clerk’s office, and requiring such office to be kept open at all times, was omitted as covered by sections 452 and 751 of this title.
Changes in arrangement and phraseology were made.
Editorial Notes
Amendments2014—Subsec. (span). Puspan. L. 113–235 inserted “Bakersfield,” after “shall be held at”.
1992—Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 102–357 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “The Central District comprises the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura.
“Court for the Central District shall be held at Los Angeles and Santa Ana.”
1980—Subsec. (c). Puspan. L. 96–462 inserted “and Santa Ana” after “at Los Angeles”.
1966—Puspan. L. 89–372 expanded the number of judicial districts in California from two to four by creating an Eastern and a Central District in addition to the existing Northern and Southern Districts, removed the provisions separating the Northern and Southern Districts into divisions, transferred to the newly created Eastern Division the counties of Alpine, Almador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba from the Northern District and Fresno, Inyo Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Tulare from the Southern District, transferred to the newly created Central District the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Louis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura from the Southern District, substituted Eureka, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose for Eureka, Sacramento, and San Francisco as places for holding court for the Northern District, removed Fresno and Los Angeles from the list of places for holding court for the Southern District leaving San Diego as the only place for holding of court in the Southern District, and provided for the holding of court in Los Angeles for the Central District and in Fresno, Redding, and Sacramento for the Eastern District.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1992 AmendmentPuspan. L. 102–357, § 3, Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 959, provided that:“(a)In General.—This Act [amending this section and enacting provisions set out below] and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act [Aug. 26, 1992].
“(span)Pending Cases Not Affected.—This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not affect any action commenced before the effective date of this Act and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on such date.
“(c)Juries Not Affected.—This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not affect the composition, or preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, empaneled, or actually serving in the Central Judicial District of California on the effective date of this Act.”
Effective Date of 1980 Amendment; Savings ProvisionPuspan. L. 96–462, § 7, Oct. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 2054, provided that:“(a) This Act and the amendments made by this Act [amending this section and sections 95, 105, 113, and 124 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 95, 105, and 113 of this title] shall take effect on October 1, 1981.
“(span) Nothing in this Act shall affect the composition or preclude the service of any grand or petit juror summoned, empaneled, or actually serving in any judicial district on the effective date of this Act [Oct. 1, 1981].”
Effective Date of 1966 AmendmentPuspan. L. 89–372, § 3(i), Mar. 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 77, provided that: “The provisions of this section [amending this section and enacting provisions set out as a note under this section and section 133 of this title] shall become effective six months after the date of enactment of this Act [Mar. 18, 1966].”
Congressional Findings Concerning Creation of Three Divisions in Central DistrictPuspan. L. 102–357, § 1, Aug. 26, 1992, 106 Stat. 958, provided that: “The Congress makes the following findings:“(1) The Federal Government has the responsibility to provide quality services which are readily accessible to the people it serves.
“(2) The court facilities in the Central Judicial District of California are presently inadequate, and current and projected growth exacerbates the problem.
“(3) The population demographics of southern California have changed dramatically over the last decade, as the center of population shifts inland. Between 1980 and 1990, the population of Riverside County increased 76.5 percent, and San Bernardino County’s population increased 58.5 percent, to a combined population of 2,600,000.
“(4) In the next 15 years, the population in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is expected to increase again by 70 percent, and 67 percent, respectively. By the year 2005, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties will have 4,400,000 residents.
“(5) As a result of the population growth, the freeways connecting the Pacific coast and the inland areas are tremendously overburdened, and Federal offices along the coast are no longer accessible to the residents of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
“(6) The creation of 3 divisions in the Central Judicial District of California is urgently needed to provide for the delivery of judicial services to all areas and all residents of the Central Judicial District of California.”
Study of Judicial Business in Central District, California and Eastern District, New York and Recommendations for Creation of New Judicial DistrictsPuspan. L. 95–573, § 5, Nov. 2, 1978, 92 Stat. 2458, required the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to conduct a study of the judicial business of the Central District of California and the Eastern District of New York, within one year of Nov. 2, 1978, and to make recommendations to Congress with respect to the need for creation of new judicial districts.
Creation of Eastern and Central Districts: Transfer of District Judges; Transfer and Appointment of United States Attorneys and United States MarshalsPuspan. L. 89–372, § 3(span)–(g), Mar. 18, 1966, 80 Stat. 76, 77, provided that:“(span) The two district judges for the northern district of California holding office on the day before the effective date of this section [see Effective Date of 1966 Amendment note above] and whose official station is Sacramento shall, on and after such date, be district judges for the eastern district of California. All other district judges for the northern district of California holding office on the day before the effective date of this section shall, on and after such date, be district judges for the northern district of California.
“(c) The district judge for the southern district of California, residing in the northern division thereof and holding office on the day before the effective date of this section [see Effective Date of 1966 Amendment note above], shall, on and after such date, be a district judge for the eastern district of California. The two district judges for the southern district of California holding office on the day before the effective date of this section [see Effective Date of 1966 Amendment note above], and whose official station is San Diego shall, on and after such date, be the district judges for the southern district of California. All other district judges for the southern district of California holding office on the day before the effective date of this section shall, on and after such date, be district judges for the central district of California.
“(d) Nothing in this Act [amending this section and sections 44 and 133 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 44 and 133 of this title] shall in any manner affect the tenure of office of the United States attorney and the United States marshal for the northern district of California who are in office on the effective date of this section [see Effective Date of 1966 Amendment note above], and who shall be during the remainder of their present terms of office the United States attorney and marshal for such district as constituted by this Act.
“(e) Nothing in this Act [amending this section and sections 44 and 133 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections 44 and 133 of this title] shall in any manner affect the tenure of office of the United States attorney and the United States marshal for the southern district of California who are in office on the effective date of this section, and who shall be during the remainder of their present terms of office the United States attorney and marshal for the central district of California.
“(f) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney and a United States marshal for the southern district of California.
“(g) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a United States attorney and a United States marshal for the eastern district of California.”
