Dixon v. Dixon et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/8/15, ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Northern District of Texas.. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLAUDE DIXON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2982 MCE CKD PS

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff alleges diversity as the basis for

18

subject matter jurisdiction. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought

19

only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

as provided in this section, 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

The property which is the subject of this action is located in Azle, Texas, which is located

26

in Tarrant County. Defendants also reside in Azle, Texas. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should

27

have been filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In the interest of

28

justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.
1

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

2

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

3

States District, Northern District of Texas.

4

Dated: January 8, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7

4 dixon.tra

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2