(PC)Frazer v. Diaz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL FRAZER, No. 2:20-cv-1888 AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RALPH DIAZ, et al. 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. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 //// 28 //// 1 In this case, the claim arose in Riverside County, which is in the Central District of 2 || California.’ Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 3 || for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 4 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 5 || McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 7 || States District Court for the Central District of California. 8 || DATED: December 17, 2021 ~ 9 Cthten— Lane ALLISON CLAIRE 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 | —___ ' Claim One is based on events that occurred at Ironwood State Prison and makes allegations 25 against staff at that institution. Although some other defendants are CDCR officials based in 26 || Sacramento, and Claim Two attempts to challenge a statewide corrections policy, plaintiff's standing to bring Claim Two appears to the undersigned to depend on the viability of Claim One. 27 || Claim One indisputably arose in Riverside County, where ISP is located. Moreover, this action may be related to another case transferred by this court to the Central District, Sams v. CDCR, 28 | Case No. 21-cv-0408 DB (transferred on March 3, 2021) (C. D. Cal. Case No. 5:21-cv-00493).