Cannell v. The People of the State of Utah et al

Filing 5

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to Northern District of CA, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/10/2019. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Case No. 1:19-cv-01154-LJO-BAM THOMAS A. CANNELL, IV, Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF UTAH, et al., Defendants. 13 Plaintiff Thomas A. Cannell, IV (“Plaintiff”) is a Denver county jail inmate proceeding 14 pro se in the instant action against The People of the State of Utah, Apple Computer, Inc., and 15 Jocelyn Anderson Jobs. (Doc. Nos. 1, 4.) 16 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought only in “(1) a judicial 17 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 18 district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 19 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 20 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 21 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 22 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 23 Plaintiff’s allegations are unclear and it is difficult to discern the precise claims Plaintiff is 24 seeking to raise, which defendants he intends to assert those claims against, the factual allegations 25 that support those claims, or whether Plaintiff’s claims have any merit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 8(a)(2) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of 27 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief [.]” ). However, the complaint alleges that 28 Defendants Apple Computer, Inc. and its employee, Jocelyn Andersen Jobs, are located in Santa 1 1 Clara, California, and the events or omissions at issue appear to have arisen in Santa Clara 2 County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, based upon the limited 3 information that can be discerned from the complaint, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in 4 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 5 federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 8 States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Court does not rule on any 9 pending motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 12 Dated: /s/ Barbara October 10, 2019 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 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?