(PC) Valenzuela v. Thorntona ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIO A VALENZUELA, 1:23-cv-01525 HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 14 THORNTONA, et al., EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND CLOSING CASE IN FRESNO DIVISION 15 Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 1) 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner, initiated this pro se action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983 accompanied with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2). 20 Because the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred at California State Prison, 21 Sacramento, which is located in Sacramento County, Plaintiff should have filed his complaint in 22 the Sacramento Division of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River 23 County, 64 F.3d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1995) (reviewing federal court jurisdiction and venue in a § 24 1983 action). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the 25 proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the correct court. The Court finds 26 it in the interests of justice to transfer this case to the Sacramento Division under 28 U.S.C. § 27 1406(a) and Local Rule 120(f). 28 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Sacramento Division of 3 | this Court and close the case in this division. 4 2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 5 | filed at: 6 United States District Court Eastern District of California 7 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 9) 3. This court has not ruled on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 10 11 | Dated: _ October 30, 2023 Wile. Th fareh Zack 2 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28