Tony Blackman v. Brown et al

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERING Case to the Southern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/14/18. (Marrujo, C) [Transferred from California Eastern on 5/16/2018.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY BLACKMAN
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:18-cv-00633-AWI-SAB
ORDER TRANSFERING CASE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
JERRY BROWN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Tony Blackman is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant

18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint on May 9, 2018, naming 105 defendants. Based
19 upon review of the complaint, Plaintiff is challenging his conditions of confinement at the R.J.
20 Donovan Correctional Facility and the handling of his grievances.
21

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

22 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
23 defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
24 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the
25 subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if
26 there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The
27 Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that venue does not lie in this district as none
28 of the venue requirements of section 1391 are met. The incidents alleged in the complaint took

1

1 place in San Diego County which is part of the Southern District of California. Venue in this
2 action appropriately lies within the Southern District of California.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case has been filed in the wrong district, the

3

4 “district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
5 division in which it could have been brought.” Additionally Local Rule 120(f), provides that a
6 civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion,
7 be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Southern
8 District of California. The court notes that Plaintiff has previously been found to have been
9 precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because on 3 or more
10 prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, he has brought an action or appeal
11 in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or
12 fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff has not
13 filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee in this action.
14

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California;

16
2.

17

Plaintiff has previously been found, on three or more occasions, to have brought

18

actions or filed appeals that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failed to

19

state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has not filed an application to

20

proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee in this action.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23 Dated:

May 14, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2