(PC) Traver v. Driskill

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: June 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01476
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE TRAVER, 1:25-cv-00664-SKO (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 BRENT R. DRISKILL,

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 21 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 22 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 23 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 24 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 25 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 26 1391(b). 27 Here, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego County, 28 which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed 1 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of 2 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 States District Court for the Southern District of California. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: June 4, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

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