(PC) Kocak v. Jiminez

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING Case to the Northern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/2/2020. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN IVAN KOCAK,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:20-cv-00921-BAM (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
JIMINEZ,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff John Ivan Kocak (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil

17
18

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

20
21

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

22

defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which

23

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

24

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an

25

action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

26

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1391(b).

28

///
1

1

In this case, the defendant does not appear to reside in this district. The claims arose in

2

Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim

3

should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

4

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

5

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.

6

2000).

7
8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California; and
2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 2, 2020

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2