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)

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