Botts v. City of Los Angeles

E.D. California

Botts v. City of Los Angeles

DecidedOctober 23, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-01483

StatusUnknown

This text of Botts v. City of Los Angeles (Botts v. City of Los Angeles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Botts v. City of Los Angeles, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DRON BOTTS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01483-NONE-BAM

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 9 v. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Dron Botts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3.) 15 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought only in “(1) a judicial 16 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 17 district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 18 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 19 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 20 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 21 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 22 In this case, the defendant does not reside in this district and that the claims arose in Los 23 Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should 24 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the 25 interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 26 correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 27 2000). 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District 3 of California; and 4 2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 5 (Doc. No. 3.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: October 22, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DRON BOTTS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01483-NONE-BAM

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 9 v. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 11 Defendant. 12 Plaintiff Dron Botts, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action 13 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. Nos. 1, 3.) 15 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought only in “(1) a judicial 16 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 17 district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 18 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 19 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 20 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 21 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 22 In this case, the defendant does not reside in this district and that the claims arose in Los 23 Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should 24 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the 25 interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 26 correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 27 2000). 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District 3 of California; and 4 2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 5 (Doc. No. 3.) 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: October 22, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Botts v. City of Los Angeles, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/botts-v-city-of-los-angeles-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack