Rodriguez v. Jericho Project

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 3/13/12 ORDERING that this case is TRANSFERRED to the Northern 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

JERRY RODRIGUEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

No. 2:12-cv-0260 JFM (PC)

vs.

13

JERICH PROJECT, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16
17

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a county jail inmate proceeding, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a

19

judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in

20

which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

21

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

22

the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as

23

provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s

24

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

25
26

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San
Mateo County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim
1

1

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

2

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

3

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.

4

1974).

5

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

6

United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

7

DATED: March 13, 2012.

8
9
10
11
12

12
rodr0260.21

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