(HC) Valenzuela v. Cates ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACOB VALENZUELA, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01480-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 B. CATES, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 18 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 19 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 20 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 21 of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action 22 may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant 23 is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 24 In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Santa Clara County, which is in 25 the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United 26 States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court 27 may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 28 Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this 1 matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 4 Dated: October 6, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28