Favor v. 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)

Download PDF
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

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?