(PC)Bernal v. Villanueva ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTURO BERNAL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00250-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 VILLANUEVA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Arturo Bernal (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 21 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 22 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 23 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 24 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 25 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1391(b). 27 In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in Los Angeles 28 County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have 1 been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest 2 of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct 3 district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 States District Court for the Central District of California. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: March 1, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28