Blackman v. Voong et al
Filing
4
ORDER Transferring Case to the Southern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 08/02/2017. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
TONY BLACKMAN,
13
Plaintiff,
14
15
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01014-BAM (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
v.
M. VOONG, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Plaintiff Tony Blackman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action
19
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this case on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 1.). Plaintiff has also filed
20
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1
Plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat rambling and difficult to decipher, but Plaintiff appears
21
22
to allege the wrongful rejection of his inmate appeals, the denial of law library access and
23
services, and discrimination by staff at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, in San
24
Diego, California.
25
26
27
28
Although the Court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court notes in
examining this case that Plaintiff appears to have had several cases dismissed for the failure to state a claim, which
were initiated while he was a prisoner. See Blackman v. Hartwell, et al., No. 1:99-cv-05822-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 12, 2001); Blackman v. Medina, No. 3:05-cv-05390-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006); Blackman v. Variz, No.
3:06-cv-06398-SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2006); Blackman v. Taxdahl, 1:04-cv-06389-AWI-LJO (E.D. Cal. May 18,
2007); Blackman v Evans, et al., No. 1:06-cv-0081-GSA (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009); Blackman v. Lozano, et al., No.
13-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 64, 2013).
1
1
1
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
2
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
3
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which
4
a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
5
of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an
6
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
7
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1391(b).
9
In this case, the defendants do not reside in this district, and the claim arose in San Diego
10
County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have
11
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the
12
interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the
13
correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.
14
2000).
15
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
16
1.
17
18
19
20
21
This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California; and
2.
All future filings shall refer to the new case number assigned by that district and
shall be filed in that court; and
3.
This Court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s pending request to proceed in forma
pauperis
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
August 2, 2017
A. McAuliffe
_
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?