Hensley v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/21/14 ORDERING that this case is TRANSFERRED to the Central District of California.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GARY LEE HENSLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1754 MCE DAD PS

v.

ORDER

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, Gary Hensley, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

17
18

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has

19

filed a complaint and has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

1915.

21

The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint, however, reveal that both plaintiff and the named

22

defendants reside in either Ventura County, California, or Los Angeles County, and that the

23

events alleged in plaintiff’s complaint also occurred in those counties. Venue in a civil action is

24

proper in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same

25

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

26

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is

27

subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which

28

the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
1

1

Here, the complaint alleges that the events giving rise to this action took place in Ventura

2

County, California, and Los Angeles County, California, which is also where the named

3

defendants reside and are located. This action, therefore, should have been brought in the United

4

States District Court for the Central District of California, since Ventura County and Los Angeles

5

County are within the boundaries of that district. In the interests of justice, this action will be

6

transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California for further

7

proceedings, including a ruling on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and the

8

screening of plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District

10

Court for the Central District of California.

11

Dated: November 21, 2014

12
13
14

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\hensley1754.transfer.ord.docx

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