(PC) Caetano v. Securities and Exchange Commission ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, Case No. 1:23-cv-01007-EPG 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 14 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION, 15 (ECF No. 1) Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Nathaniel Dwayne Caetano, an inmate at California State Prison, proceeds pro se 20 in this civil action alleging that the Securities and Exchange Commission has failed to respond to 21 his request for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As it appears that this action should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for 22 the Eastern District of California, the Court will transfer the case to the Sacramento Division. 23 Regarding venue in FOIA cases, one court has noted as follows: 24 FOIA contains a specific provision for venue, which allows for venue in four 25 locations: (1) the judicial district where the plaintiff resides, (2) the judicial district where the plaintiff has a principal place of business, (3) the judicial district where 26 the agency records are situated, or (4) the District of Columbia. 5 U.S.C. 27 § 552(a)(4)(B). Koltys v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-08700-SK, 2022 WL 423441, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022). 28 1 The only apparent basis for venue in the complaint is Plaintiff's residence. Specifically, 2 | Plaintiff is confined at California State Prison, which is in Sacramento County. Pursuant to Local 3 | Rule 120(d), “[a]ll civil and criminal actions and proceedings of every nature and kind cognizable 4 | inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District of California arising in . . . Sacramento 5 [County] .. . shall be commenced in the United States District Court sitting [in] Sacramento, 6 California... .” Accordingly, the complaint should have been filed in the Sacramento Division. 7 Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 8 court may, on the Court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper Court. Therefore, this action 9 will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. Given the transfer, the Court will not address Plaintiffs pending application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2). 8 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 2 California sitting in Sacramento; and 13 2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 14 Filed at: United States District Court 16 Eastern District of California 501 “T° Street, Suite 4-200 17 Sacramento, CA 95814 18 19 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. Dated: _Jully 7, 2023 [Je heey — 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28