Rodriguez v. Derick et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/14/11 ORDERING that this case is TRANSFERRED to the Central District of California.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

JOSE RODRIGUEZ,

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-11-1391 DAD P

vs.
DERICK, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

16

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

17

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in

18

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

25
26

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in Los
Angeles County, which is located within in the Central District of California. Therefore,
1

1

plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District

2

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

3

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

4

932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

6

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

7

DATED: June 14, 2011.

8
9
10
11
12

DAD:12mp
rodr1391.21

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2