Mara v. Corrections Corporation of America, et al

Filing 6

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 Courtfor the District of Arizona. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED toclose the file and send any pendin g motions or further documentsreceived from Plaintiff to the U.S. District Court for theDistrict 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,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORR. CORP. OF AMERICA, C.O.
OLLOLLOLQUE, C.O. PEREZ,
Defendants.
_____________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. NO. 12-00429 HG/BMK
TRANSFER ORDER

TRANSFER ORDER
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 that Defendants,

apparently a prison guards employed at SCC, assaulted him on or
about September 24, 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.
Plaintiff’s claims concern incidents that allegedly
occurred in 2010 in Arizona involving Defendants who are employed
by SCC in Arizona.

1

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on

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.

diversity, such as in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
venue is proper in the 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.

28 U.S.C. § 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. § 1406(a).
Venue for Plaintiff’s claims alleging an assault at SCC

by SCC employees does not lie in Hawaii, but in Arizona.
U.S.C. § 1391(b).

See 28

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
the matter.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also King v. Russell,

963 F.2d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 1992).
2

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.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawaii, August 27, 2012.

/S/ Helen Gillmor
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

Mara v. Corr. Corp. of America, et al., 1:12-00429 HG/BMK; Transfer Order; psas\Trsf
or Venue/2012/ 12-429 hg (to AZ, orig j)

3