(PC) Hopper v. Madden ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS LEE HOPPER, Case No. 2:21-cv-00985-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 MADDEN, PALACIOS, BRACAMONTE, AND GRAVES 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, initially filed this action as a habeas 18 petition in the Southern District of California. See ECF Nos. 1 & 2. The Southern District 19 transferred the action to this court after finding that plaintiff (petitioner at that time) was confined 20 in this district. ECF No. 2-1 at 2. After the case was transferred, however, this action was 21 converted into a section 1983 case. ECF No. 22. That new action primarily sues defendants 22 employed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California.1 Id. at 2. 23 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 24 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 25 26 1 The action also names one defendant employed at California State Prison, Los Angeles 27 County in the Central District of California. ECF No. 22 at 2. Given that plaintiff is incarcerated at RJ Donovan and three of the defendants work at that facility, I find transfer to the Southern 28 District to be more appropriate. 1 | defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 2 | substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 3 | of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 4 | action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 5 | defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 6 | § 1391(b). 7 Now that plaintiff has changed the nature of this case, the complaint does not reflect that 8 | any of defendants reside in this district, and plaintiffs claims now arise primarily in San Diego 9 | County, which is in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Thus, this action 10 | should be transferred back to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 11 || California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong 12 | district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 13 | (D.C. Cir. 1974). 14 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 15 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | 1 We Dated: _ December 1, 2022 Q_-—— 19 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 30 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28