(PC)Martinez v. Diaz ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE LUIS MARTINEZ, No. 2:20-cv-1881 DB P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 RALPH DIAZ, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 17 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor paid the filing fee for this action. 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, plaintiff’s claims arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District 27 of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in the United States District 28 Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer 2 OU UV VLOOL ERP MUVUETTIOCTI OG POC eer ev 1 | acomplaint 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 Central District of California. 5 | Dated: September 28, 2020 g ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 DLB:9 14 | DB/prisoner-civil rights/mart1881.21a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28