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).

Download PDF
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

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?