(PC) Romo v. Los Angeles Sheriff Department ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID ROMO, No. 2:19-cv-2160 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LOS ANGELES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a Los Angeles county prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be 20 brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of 21 the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the 22 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 23 subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be 24 brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the 25 court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the defendants are located in and the claim arose in Los Angeles County, 27 which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of 28 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the Central District. In the 1 | interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 2 | correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 3 | 1974). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 | States District Court for the Central District of California. 6 | Dated: October 29, 2019 4 Hf / /, , CAN fu fl. ay CAROLYN K. DELANEY 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 I/mp romo2160.21a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28