Kalincheva v. Neubarth

Filing 9

ORDER OF TRANSFER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/8/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MAGDALINA KALINCHEVA, M.D.,

9

Plaintiff,

No. C 14-03323-SI
ORDER OF TRANSFER

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

v.
JESSE NEUBARTH,

12

Defendant.
/

13
14

On July 11, 2013, plaintiff Magdalina Kalincheva, proceeding pro se, filed an action in the

15

Northern District of California against defendant Jesse Neubarth. Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 13-cv-

16

3212, Docket No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2013). This Court transferred the action to the Eastern District

17

of California. Id., Docket No. 14. In the order, the Court noted that both plaintiff and defendant reside

18

in the Eastern District, and no defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or omissions

19

giving rise to the complaint occurred in, the Northern District. Id.

20

On July 15, 2014, plaintiff filed a second action in the Northern District of California against

21

defendant Jesse Neubarth. Kalincheva v. Neubarth, No. 13-cv-3294, Docket No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 15,

22

2013). This Court also transferred the second action to the Eastern District of California. Id., Docket

23

No. 13.

24

On July 23, 2014, plaintiff filed a third action in the Northern District of California against

25

defendant Jesse Neubarth. Docket No. 1. On August 4, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

26

Docket No. 8. In the pleadings, plaintiff appears to seek enforcement of the contract allegedly created

27

by “Form I-864,” the affidavit of support signed by her immigration sponsor. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a).

28

1

The Court again concludes that this district is not the proper venue for plaintiff’s action.

2

According to the civil cover sheet and the allegations in the pleadings, plaintiff resides in Stockton,

3

California, and defendant resides in Bakersfield, California. Docket No. 1 at 6, 18, 30. Thus, both

4

parties reside within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

5

No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint

6

occurred in, the Northern District. Venue therefore would be proper in the Eastern District and not in

7

this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

8

1406(a), this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

9

California. The clerk shall transfer this matter.1

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: August 8, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court also defers to the Eastern District to rule on plaintiff’s pending application to
proceed in forma pauperis.
2