Neufeld v. Odom, et al.

Filing 3

ORDER transferring case to the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/18/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM JOSEPH NEUFELD, JR.,

12

1:12-cv-01689 GSA (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J. ODOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

/

17
18

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 diversity

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Luis

26

Obispo County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should

27

have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the

28

///
-1-

1

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct

2

district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

3
4
5
6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe

October 18, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-