Barnes v. Barnes ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE DESHAWN BARNES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01603-NONE-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 MARCIE BARNES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 19 (1971). (ECF No. 1). 20 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 21 jurisdiction, be brought only in: “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 22 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which 23 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 24 of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an 25 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 26 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1391(b). 28 1 In this case, the Defendants do not reside in this District. Plaintiff alleges that the 2 | violation of his rights occurred in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of 3 | California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in the United States District Court 4 | forthe Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 5 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 7 | States District Court for the Northern District of California. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | Dated: _ November 5, 2021 [see hey □ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >