(PC)Espinoza v. Garcia ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ESPINOZA, No. 2:20-cv-1770 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROWLAND GARCIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of 27 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 28 42.4VU UV VLE EUINGVIN bMVVULTICII PHM Vitec rPaywt evre 1 | for the Central District of California.! In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 2 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 3 | McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 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: September 10, 2020 7 Se 00 Al i; Noreen g KENDALL J. NE espil770.21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 1 plaintiff appears to allege that West Covina Police Officer Gonzales wrote a false report that 26 || tesulted in plaintiff's transfer from Seattle to West Covina. Plaintiff alleges that he was then booked for attempted murder. It is not clear if the instant action is a civil rights action or a habeas 27 || corpus petition. However, because plaintiffs claims and criminal proceedings arose in Los Angeles County, jurisdiction is appropriate in the Central District whether this action is brought 28 | as acivil rights action or a habeas corpus petition.