Blackman v. Micormic et al

Filing 3

ORDER Transferring Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/23/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY BLACKMAN,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

1:11-cv-01207-GBC (PC)

v.
MICORMIC, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17
18

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

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

20

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

21

if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of

22

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

23

property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any

24

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

25

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

26

In this case, none of the Defendants reside in this District. The claim arose in

27

Monterrey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim

28

should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
-1-

1

California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the

2

wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512

3

F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United

4
5

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated:
1j0bbc

July 23, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-