Graves v. United States Marshall Office et al

Filing 5

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/21/2015. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/21/2015: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PETER GRAVES,

Case No. 15-cv-01640-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNITED STATES MARSHALL OFFICE,
et al.,

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

Defendants.

12
13

Pro se plaintiff Peter Graves, which is apparently an alias according to the complaint, filed

14

this federal civil rights claim against the United States Marshall’s Office and other government

15

actors. Dkt. No. 1. His claim relates to events that allegedly occurred at a courthouse in

16

Sacramento, California, which is located within the Eastern District of California. Id.; see 28

17

U.S.C. § 84. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3.

18

The case is transferred to the Eastern District of California. When jurisdiction is not

19

founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all

20

of the defendants reside in the same state, (2) the 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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

23

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Where a case is

24

filed in the wrong venue, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the case or transfer it

25

to the proper federal court “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Venue may be raised

26

by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time

27

for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

28

1

The Northern District of California is the wrong venue for this action. Plaintiff’s claims

2

relate to events that allegedly took place in Sacramento and within the Eastern District of

3

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. Venue of this action therefore lies there, not here. Accordingly,

4

in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), it is ordered that this action be

5

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In light of the

6

transfer, this Court will not decide plaintiff’s pending motion.

7

The Court notes that plaintiff filed in this district because he believes all the federal judges

8

in the Eastern District have a conflict of interest. Dkt. No. 1 at 34. The Court does not address

9

this issue and leaves it for disposition by the judge assigned in the Eastern District if plaintiff

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

chooses to raise the alleged conflicts argument there.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 21, 2015

13
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2