Dunbar v. Dahlberg

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00905
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE DUNBAR, Case No. 2:23-cv-00298-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.

14 A. DAHLBERG, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought in “(1) a judicial district 20 where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is 21 located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to 22 the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, 23 or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this 24 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction 25 with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, no defendant resides in this district, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Del Norte 27 County in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). This action should have 28 been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of 1 | justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 2 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the U.S. District 4 | Court for the Northern District of California. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

’ Dated: _ February 26, 2023 \ sa 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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