Brandon Favor v. Paul Tanaka, et al.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 6/7/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T) [Transferred from California Eastern on 6/8/2017.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17-cv-00772-BAM (PC)
TANAKA, et al.,
Plaintiff Brandon Favor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a “motion to dismiss with relief obtaining counsel.”1
(ECF Nos. 2, 3.)
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an
The Court notes, without deciding, that Plaintiff may be subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Favor-El v.
Rome, Case No. 1:15-cv-01865-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.); Carter v. Gray, Case No. 2:17-cv-00595-JGB-JEM (C.D.
Cal.); Favor-El v. Slave Owners, Case No. 2:16-cv-08038-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.); Favor v. Harper, Case No. 2:16-cv08713-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.); Favor v. California, Case No. 16-cv-02870-JGB-JEM (C.D. Cal.); Favor v.
Slavemasters, Case No. 2:15-cv-05840-JGB-JEM.
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
In this case, the claims arise out of events the Men’s Central Jail and against defendants
working at that jail, in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California.
Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint
filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v.
Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of
2. This Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and
3. This Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s “motion to dismiss with relief obtaining
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 7, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?