Mara v. DeWhite
TRANSFER ORDER. Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 8/27/2012. re 1 Complaint filed by Rory Mara ~ This action is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file and send any p ending motions or further documents received from Plaintiff to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry [Transferred from hid on 8/30/2012.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
RORY MARA, #A0183774,
CIV. NO. 12-00428 HG/KSC
Plaintiff Rory Mara, a Hawaii inmate confined at the
Saguaro Correctional Center (“SCC”), located in Eloy, Arizona,
has filed a pro se prisoner civil rights action in this court.
Compl., ECF Doc. No. 1.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant Dewhite,
apparently a prison guard employed at SCC, assaulted him on or
about September 28, 2010.1
The court finds that venue is
improper in Hawaii and that transfer of this action is in the
interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Accordingly, this action is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.
concern incidents that allegedly occurred in 2010 in Arizona
involving a Defendant who is employed by SCC in Arizona.
jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, such as in an
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, venue is proper in the
Plaintiff submitted an incomplete in forma pauperis
application, that the court denied, before the court screened
this complaint and realized that venue was improper in Hawaii.
ECF #4. Plaintiff may refile a fully-completed in forma pauperis
application with the District of Arizona.
district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all of the
defendants reside in the same state; (2) a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
situated; or (3) any defendant may be found, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
§ 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River Cnty., 64 F.3d 470
(9th Cir. 1995) (extensive discussion on jurisdiction); Lee v.
Corr. Corp. of Am., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1243 (D. Haw. 2007).
“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying
venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district
or division in which it could have been brought.”
28 U.S.C. §
Venue for Plaintiff’s claims alleging an assault at SCC
by an SCC employee does not lie in Hawaii, but in Arizona.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
The interests of justice favor transfer of
this case to the District of Arizona where the significant events
or omissions material to Plaintiff’s claims are alleged to have
occurred, witnesses may be found, there is access to the
necessary evidence, and there is a local interest in resolving
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also King v. Russell,
963 F.2d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1992).
This action is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
close the file and send any pending motions or further documents
received from Plaintiff to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Honolulu, Hawaii, August 27, 2012.
/S/ Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge
Mara v. DeWhite, 1:12-00428 HG/KSC; Transfer Order; psas\Trsf or Venue/2012/ 12-428 hg
(to AZ, orig j)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?