Thornton v. Harris et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Southern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 7/11/11. (Verduzco, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/11/2011.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM CECIL THORNTON,

12

1:11-cv-01120-GBC (PC)

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAMALA HARRIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

20

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

21

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

22

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action

23

is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

24

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

25

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego

26

County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have

27
28
-1-

1

been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.1 In the interest

2

of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.

3

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated:
0jh02o

July 11, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Additionally, it appears that the claims in this action are duplicative of Thornton v. Schwarzenegger, et al.,
3:10-cv-01583-RBB (Dismissed June 1, 2011, for failure to state a claim under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)).

-2-