(PC) Hill v. Millet ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYMEYON V. HILL, No. 2:24-cv-2378 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MILLET, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is confined at Napa State Hospital and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither filed an application to proceed in 19 forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor paid the filing fee for this action. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Napa County, which is in 28 the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the 1 | United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 2 || federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 3 | 28US.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 || States District Court for the Northern District of California. 6 | DATED: September 16, 2024 7 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28