Duong v. Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOC CHI DUONG, Case No. 1:22-cv-01407-EPG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Loc Chi Duong, proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). For the reasons explained below, the Court will transfer this case to 19 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.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 25 1 Because this transfer is a non-dispositive matter, the Court need not prepare findings and recommendations for a District Judge. Rodriguez v. Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Ct. of California, No. 26 2:21-CV-0066-KJM-CKD (PS), 2021 WL 1426800, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2021) (“Because a transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1404(a) is not dispositive of all federal proceedings and instead 27 specifically enables a plaintiff to continue the suit in another federal district, the undersigned has authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) to issue a transfer order, rather than a report and recommendation, 28 even without consent to magistrate jurisdiction.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). ee nn eee ee OE IS IE ID 1 | of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an 2 | action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 3 | defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 4 | § 13910). 5 In this case, the complaint lists no information showing that Defendants reside in this 6 District; rather, under the portion of the complaint for “Current Address/Place of Employment,” 7 Plaintiff lists “County of Santa Clara” for each Defendant. (ECF No. 1, pp. 2-3). Further, the 8 majority of Plaintiffs claims concern Plaintiff's conviction in the Santa Clara County Superior 9 Court, with Plaintiff asserting violations of his rights to access the court, to due process, and to be free from cruel-and-unusual punishment.” Because it appears that the events or omissions giving 8 rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Santa Clara County, Plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of 2 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 13 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 15 States District Court for the Northern District of California.? 16 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ November 7, 2022 [Jee Py — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 | ? The Court recognizes that Plaintiff also asserts that he was denied medical care while at Folsom State Prison; however, none of the Defendants in this suit—who all appear to be sued in connection with 27 | Plaintiff's claims relating to the events in Santa Clara County—are implicated in the medical-needs claim. 3 Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor has Plaintiff moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Given 28 the transfer of this case to the Northern District of California, the Court will not address this issue.