Ernest Godfrey Logan, Jr. v. Panda Express, et al.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 12, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-09141
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST GODFREY LOGAN, JR., No. 2:25-cv-02565-DAD-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 PANDA EXPRESS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel, filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma 18 pauperis on September 9, 2025. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) This matter is before the undersigned pursuant 19 to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Venue does not lie in this district. For the 20 following reasons, the court will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the 21 Central District of California. 22 If a court determines the appropriate venue for a case lies in another division or district, 23 the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 24 division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The general federal venue 25 statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any 26 defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a 27 judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 28 occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there 1 is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial 2 district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such 3 action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 4 Here, the named defendants are located in Anaheim, California, which is in the Central 5 District of California.1 In addition, it appears the complaint’s allegations involve events that took 6 place in Anaheim. The complaint’s allegations do not establish that a substantial part of the 7 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). 8 Venue does not properly lie in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 9 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may transfer a case brought in the wrong 10 division or district if it is “in the interest of justice” to do so. If a district court denies such a 11 transfer in its discretion, then the court must dismiss the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Transfer is 12 generally preferred over dismissal where the plaintiff made an honest mistake as to where the suit 13 could have been brought. E.g., Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 967 F. Supp. 2d 1367, 1391- 14 92 (D. Or. 2013), aff’d, 684 F. App’x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dismissal is appropriate when the 15 case was deliberately filed in the wrong court through forum shopping, Wood v. Santa Barbara 16 Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1523 (9th Cir. 1983), or if it is clear the complaint 17 could not be amended to state a cognizable claim, see generally Lemon v. Kramer, 270 F.Supp.3d 18 125, 140 (D. D.C. 2017). 19 Here, plaintiff may have accidently filed the case in the wrong venue, as the caption of the 20 complaint states “Central District of California.”2 (See ECF No. 1.) Further, the court is unable to 21 conclude there are no circumstances under which plaintiff can state a cognizable claim. The court 22 will transfer this action to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In 23 transferring this action, this court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of plaintiff’s 24

25 1 Plaintiff’s address of record is in Los Angeles, California.

26 2 The Court notes that plaintiff has filed nine cases in this Court in the past year, six of which 27 (including this case) have been transferred to a different district. Plaintiff is warned that continue failure to file in the improper district could be construed as deliberate forum shopping and result 28 in dismissal. See Wood, 705 F.2d at 1523. 1 | complaint. Plaintiff is instructed to direct any further filings or inquiries related to this case to the 2 || United States District Court for the Central District of California. Further documents filed in the 3 || Eastern District of California related to this case will be disregarded. 4 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. This action, including the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is 6 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of 7 California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 8 2. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 2 | Dated: September 11, 2025 ( aie } Kt | / } a a CAROLYN K.DELANEY 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 || 5, toga.2565.25 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28