Pittman v. McWilliam

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Court dismisses this action sua sponte w/o prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file a Motion for IFP. Case is dismissed w/o prejudice for lack of proper venue. Clerk shall close the file. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 1/22/2009. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(jah)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at California Rehabilitation Center located Defendant. T. McWILLIAM, vs. WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, CDCR #F-64353 Plaintiff, Civil No. 09-CV-0072 MMA (CAB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ORDER: (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILING TO PAY FILING FEE REQUIRED BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and (2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 24 in Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 25 § 1983. 26 I. 27 Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United 28 States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 -109cv0072 1 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party's failure to pay this filing fee only if 2 the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 3 See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 4 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 5 Here, Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action, 6 nor has submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, this case is subject to immediate 7 dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). 8 II. 9 Lack of Proper Venue An initial review of this action reveals that Plaintiff's case lacks proper venue. Venue 10 may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading 11 and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 "A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except 13 as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant 14 resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part 15 of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that 16 is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be 17 found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 19 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). "The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue 20 in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such 21 case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 22 Here, Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California 23 and he alleges that the Defendant also resides in Norco, California. (See Compl. at 1-2.) Norco 24 is located in Riverside County. No defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District. See 25 28 U.S.C. 84(d) ("The Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and 26 San Diego."). 27 / / / 28 / / / -209cv0072 1 Thus, venue may be proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division, 2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1) but not in the Southern District of California.1 See 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. 4 III. 5 6 Conclusion and Order For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby: DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack The Clerk of Court shall close the file. 7 fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and 8 9 of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a). 10 11 DATED: January 22, 2009 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Complaint in the Central District of California, along with a Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will be subject to the sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). -309cv0072 1 Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he elect to proceed with these claims by filing a

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?