Duckett v. Garcia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES DUCKETT, AKA JAMESHA No. 2:24-cv-0878 AC P DUCKETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 P. GARCIA, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1915. 21 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 22 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 23 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 24 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 25 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 26 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 27 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 28 In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in Monterey County, which is 1 | inthe Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the 2 || United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 3 || federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 4 | US.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 6 || States District Court for the Northern District of California. 7 || DATED: April 1, 2024 ~ g Httven— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28