Jones v. Universal Health Care Services, Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/1/13: This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

ROSINA JONES,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:12-cv-1682 JAM DAD PS

v.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
SERVICES INC., et al.,

ORDER

13
14
15
16

Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, Rosina Jones, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was

17

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

18

On October 29, 2012 the undersigned dismissed plaintiff’s complaint and granted plaintiff leave

19

to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint and has requested leave

20

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

21

The allegations found in plaintiff’s amended complaint concern claims of slander

22

and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The amended complaint alleges that plaintiff

23

resides in California, that defendant Universal Health Service, Inc., is located in Brentwood,

24

Tennessee, that defendant Kingwood Pines Hospital is located in Kingwood, Texas and that the

25

alleged wrongful conduct of the defendants occurred in Kingwood, Texas. Plaintiff’s amended

26

complaint also seeks an award of $114,412 in damages. It appears that plaintiff is alleging that
1

1

the court’s jurisdiction over this action is based on diversity of citizenship.

2

Venue in a diversity action is proper in (1) a judicial district where any defendant

3

resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) “a judicial district in which a substantial

4

part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property

5

that is the subject of the action is situated,” or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is

6

subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in

7

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

8
9

Here, the amended complaint alleges that the events giving rise to this action took
place in Kingwood, Texas, which is also where one of the defendants is located. This action,

10

therefore, should have been brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District

11

of Texas because Kingwood, Texas is part of that district.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 124(b). In the

12

interests of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the

13

Southern District of Texas for further proceedings, including a ruling on plaintiff’s application to

14

proceed in forma pauperis and the screening of plaintiff’s amend complaint. See 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1404(a).

16

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States

17

District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

18

DATED: April 1, 2013.

19
20
21
22

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.pro se\jones1682.transfer.ord

23
24
25
26

1

Kingwood is located primarily Harris County, although a portion of the community
resides in Montgomery County. The Southern District of Texas encompasses both Harris County
and Montgomery County.
2