(PC) Hill v. Haroing ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CYMEYON V. HILL, No. 2:24-cv-2393 AC P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 HAROING, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, who is confined at Napa State Hospital proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither filed an application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor paid the filing fee for this action. 19 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 20 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 21 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 22 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 23 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 24 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 25 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Napa County, which is in 27 the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the 28 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 1 | federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 2 | 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 4 | States District Court for the Northern District of California. 5 | DATED: September 16, 2024 6 Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28