Jackson v. Pompan et al

Filing 3

ORDER Transferring Case to the Northern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/27/12. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICK JACKSON, 8 9 10 1:12-cv-01919-SKO (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA vs. DONALD C. POMPAN, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 / 13 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on 15 diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 16 defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 17 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of 18 the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no 19 district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 20 Given that the events arose in Monterey County and no defendant resides in this district, 21 Plaintiff’s complaint should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern 22 District of California. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise 23 defective venue sua sponte). Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED TRANSFERRED to 24 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: i0d3h8 November 27, 2012 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?