Tony Blackman v. Dizon et al

Filing 3

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to Southern District of CA, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/8/17. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY BLACKMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01627 BAM (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R. DIZON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Tony Blackman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On December 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint, (ECF No. 1) and

19

an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, (ECF No. 2).

20

Plaintiff sues prison officials employed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in

21

San Diego, California. Plaintiff appears to allege that he was a victim of a hate crime and other

22

violations occurred against his rights while he was housed at that institution.

23

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b).
1

1

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

2

County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have

3

been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

4

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

5

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

6

(D.C. Cir. 1974).

7

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

8

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The Court makes no ruling on

9

Plaintiff’s pending application to proceed in forma paueris.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 8, 2017

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A. McAuliffe

2