(PC) Overton v. O'Malley ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL L. OVERTON, No. 2:20-cv-1495 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 NANCY E. O’MALLEY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. 19 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 20 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 21 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 22 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 23 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 24 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 25 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of 27 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 28 for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a wOASe 2 CUVEE Se MEU OIC ee PAY eV 1 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 2 | McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 4 || States District Court for the Northern District of California. 5 || DATED: July 29, 2020 ~ 6 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28