Briggs v. Enriquez

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERRING Case to the Central District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/20/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNNY LEE BRIGGS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

1:17-cv-00814-EPG (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

T. ENRIQUEZ,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. ' 1983.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if

24

there is no district in 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

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the
1

1

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

2

1974).

3
4

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

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 20, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2