Covorrubio v. Poulas

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/22/06 ORDERING that this court has not ruled on 2 Application to proceed IFP and this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Donati, J)

Download PDF
(HC) Covorrubio v. Poulas Doc. 4 Case 2:06-cv-02801-DFL-GGH Document 4 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Although plaintiff has submitted his allegations on a form for a Central District habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254, he challenges only conditions of his prison confinement, claiming violations under the Eighth Amendment. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MANUEL COVORRUBIO, Plaintiff, vs. MIKE POULAS, Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject ORDER No. CIV S-06-2801 DFL GGH P Case 2:06-cv-02801-DFL-GGH Document 4 Filed 12/22/2006 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; and 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. DATED: 12/22/06 GGH:009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 covo2801.21 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?