(PC) Hill v. Tom et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 09/25/2024 TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Spichka, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CYMEYON HILL,

12
13
14

No. 2:24-cv-02461-EFB (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

TOM, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to

18

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

19

28 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
28

In this case, the claim arose in Napa County, which is in the Northern District of
California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court
1

1

for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a

2

complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v.

3

McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

6
7

Dated: September 25, 2024

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