Allen v. Hubbard et al

Filing 11

ORDER TRANSFERRING Case to Central District of California 1 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/5/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JOSEPH A. ALLEN,

10
11

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00396-SKO PC
Plaintiff,

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
(Doc. 1)

12
13

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,
Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Joseph A. Allen, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 8, 2010. Plaintiff’s claims arise from his

17

allegedly erroneous classification as an associate of the Five Trey Avalon Crips disruptive group.

18

Plaintiff denies ever being associated with any gang and he has attempted to correct this

19

misinformation for years.

20

Plaintiff’s exhibits indicate that officials with the California Department of Corrections and

21

Rehabilitation support the gang classification by referencing Los Angeles County records, but upon

22

inquiry from Plaintiff, the Los Angeles County Police Department denied finding any information

23

on Plaintiff or his alleged association with a criminal street gang. Although Plaintiff was

24

incarcerated at California State Prison-Corcoran when he initiated this action, the events giving rise

25

to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Central District of California, as they involve Los Angeles

26

County and California State Prison-Los Angeles County.

27

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

28

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

1

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

2

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action

3

is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

4

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

5

In this case, the claims arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of

6

California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint should have been filed in the United States District

7

Court for the Central District of California, and in the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer

8

a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Costlow v. Weeks,

9

790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective venue sua sponte).

10
11

Accordingly, this matter is HEREBY ORDERED transferred to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:
i0d3h8

May 5, 2011

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2