(PC) Reed v. Scully ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TAMECUS REED, Case No. 1:22-cv-00085-DAD-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERING CASE TO SACRAMENTO DIVISION 13 v. (Doc. No. 1) 14 JAN SCULLY, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner, initiated this pro se action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is incarcerated at Valley State Prison, which is located in 19 Chowchilla, California and within the venue of the Fresno Division of this Court. Plaintiff’s 20 complaint, however, alleges a “due process violation” against Defendant Jan Scully, who is 21 identified as the “District Attorney of Sacramento County” stemming her alleged refusal to 22 provide Plaintiff with records and evidence to file a post-conviction appeal. (See generally Id.). 23 Because the events giving rise to the cause of action allegedly occurred in Sacramento County 24 and defendant resides in Sacramento County, Plaintiff should have filed his complaint in the 25 Sacramento Division of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River 26 County, 64 F.3d 470, 474 (9th Cir. 1995) (reviewing federal court jurisdiction and venue in a § 27 1983 action). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the 28 proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the correct court. The Court finds 1 | it in the interests of justice to transfer this case to the Sacramento Division under 28 U.S.C. § 2 | 1406(a). 3 ACCORIDNGLY, it is ORDERED: 4 The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Sacramento Division of this 5 Court. 6 Dated: _ July 6.2022 law □□ fareh Zacks g HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28