Harris v. Virga, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/22/2014 TRANSFERRING this action to the USDC for the Northern District of California. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARVIN HARRIS,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0975 WBS DAD P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

TIM V. VIRGA et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 1915.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

In the caption of the complaint before the court plaintiff appears to identify as the

28

defendants the Warden of Folsom State Prison, an unidentified doctor and two property officers.
1

1

(Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) However, in the body of his complaint plaintiff names the defendants as the

2

Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison and three other correctional employees at Salinas Valley.

3

(Id. at 2.) In his complaint plaintiff identifies the institution where the alleged constitutional

4

violation occurred as Folsom State Prison. (Id. at 1.) However, a review of the actual allegations

5

of the complaint reveals that plaintiff is seeking to complain about missing personal property that

6

did not accompany him when, on December 27, 2013, he was transferred from Folsom to Salinas

7

Valley, as well as about a classification committee decision made at Salinas Valley and the

8

conditions of his confinement at Salinas Valley. (Id. at 3-10.) As such plaintiff’s primary claims

9

arose at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey County. Monterey County is in the Northern

10

District of California. Therefore, in furtherance of justice, the court will transfer this action to the

11

United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

12

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

13

District of California.

14

Dated: May 22, 2014

15
16
17

DAD:9
harr0975.21c

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