(PC) Roberts v. Riverside County ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID NATHANIEL ROBERTS, No. 2:23-cv-0464 DMC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, 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. 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 / / / ] In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in Riverside County, which is 2 || 1n the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the 3 || United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a 4 | federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 5 || U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 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 5 | Dated: March 16, 2023 Ss..c0_, 10 DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28