Bennett v. O'Keefe et al

Filing 3

ORDER Transferring Case to Northern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/13/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13

DAVID BENNETT,

14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01216-DAD-SKO

Plaintiff,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
v.

16
17
18
19

MAIREAD O’KEEFE, MOLLY O’NEAL,
and SCC PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

20
21
22

On September 12, 2017, Plaintiff David Bennett, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint

23 against Defendants Mairead O’Keefe, Molly O’Neal, and SCC Public Defenders Office, Santa
24 Clara County, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2.) The
25 complaint purports to allege claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for ineffective assistance of
26 counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, apparently arising from an underlying criminal
27 conviction in Santa Clara County. (See Doc. 1 at 3, 28–40.) Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at
28 the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California.

1

It appears that the defendants in this case are located outside the geographical boundaries

2 of this district and the events related to a judicial proceeding in Santa Clara County are also
3 outside the geographical boundaries of this district. The federal venue statute requires that a civil
4 action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in
5 which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
6 located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
7 the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
8 (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section,
9 any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with
10 respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
11

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

12 Santa Clara County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim
13 should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.1
14

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

15 to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.
16 1974). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
17 States District Court for the Northern District of California.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 Dated:

September 13, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff appears to acknowledge as much, as his handwritten complaint bears the heading “UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.” (See Doc. 1 at 28.)

2