Brandon Favor v. Paul Tanaka, et al.

Filing 8

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.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON FAVOR,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00772-BAM (PC)

TANAKA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Brandon Favor, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action

17
18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma

19

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and a “motion to dismiss with relief obtaining counsel.”1

20

(ECF Nos. 2, 3.)
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

21
22

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

23

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which

24

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

25

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an

26

1

27
28

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.

1

1

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

2

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.

3

§ 1391(b).

4

In this case, the claims arise out of events the Men’s Central Jail and against defendants

5

working at that jail, in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California.

6

Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the

7

Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint

8

filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v.

9

Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000).

10

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of

12

California;

13

2. This Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and

14

3. This Court has not ruled on plaintiff’s “motion to dismiss with relief obtaining
counsel.”

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

June 7, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2