Blackman v. Voong et al
ORDER Transferring Case to the Southern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 08/02/2017. (Flores, E) [Transferred from California Eastern on 8/3/2017.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 1:17-cv-01014-BAM (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
M. VOONG, et al.,
Plaintiff Tony Blackman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this case on July 31, 2017. (ECF No. 1.). Plaintiff has also filed
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1
Plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat rambling and difficult to decipher, but Plaintiff appears
to allege the wrongful rejection of his inmate appeals, the denial of law library access and
services, and discrimination by staff at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, in San
Although the Court makes no ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court notes in
examining this case that Plaintiff appears to have had several cases dismissed for the failure to state a claim, which
were initiated while he was a prisoner. See Blackman v. Hartwell, et al., No. 1:99-cv-05822-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal.
Mar. 12, 2001); Blackman v. Medina, No. 3:05-cv-05390-SI (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006); Blackman v. Variz, No.
3:06-cv-06398-SI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2006); Blackman v. Taxdahl, 1:04-cv-06389-AWI-LJO (E.D. Cal. May 18,
2007); Blackman v Evans, et al., No. 1:06-cv-0081-GSA (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009); Blackman v. Lozano, et al., No.
13-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 64, 2013).
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 are residents of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there is no district in which an
action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any
defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
In this case, the defendants do not reside in this district, and the claim arose in San Diego
County, which 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); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California; and
All future filings shall refer to the new case number assigned by that district and
shall be filed in that court; and
This Court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s pending request to proceed in forma
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 2, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?