Lau v. Cate

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/22/10 ORDERING that this case is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of California.(Dillon, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 1/22/2010.]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). /// 1 ORDER HON LAU, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-3481 KJM P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
4 lau3481.21

In this case, none of the defendants resides in this district. According to plaintiff's allegations, the claim appears to have arisen after he was transferred from Corcoran State Prison to the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California. San Diego is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; and 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. DATED: January 22, 2010.

2