(PC) Yocom v. Biden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2021
• Docket: 1:21-cv-01015
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL ALAN YOCOM, Case No. 1:21-cv-01015-DAD-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE COURT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY 13 v. REDESIGNATE CASE AS A PRISONER ACTION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING 14 JOE BIDEN, et al., CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Alan Yocom (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) The Clerk designated this action as 19 a regular civil action. 20 The Court has reviewed the complaint and determined that the present action involves a 21 prisoner litigating the conditions of his confinement. Consequently, the administrative 22 designation should reflect this, and this matter should proceed according to the rules governing 23 actions involving a prisoner litigating the conditions of his confinement. This includes Local Rule 24 230(l) on motions in prisoner actions. 25 Further, the federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on 26 diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 27 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 28 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 1 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 2 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 3 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1391(b). 5 In this case, the defendants do not appear to reside in this district. The claims arose in 6 Monterey County, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim 7 should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 8 In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 9 correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 10 2000). 11 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 12 1. The Clerk of the Court SHALL change the administrative designation of the present 13 case to reflect that of a prisoner litigating the conditions of his confinement; 14 2. The Clerk of the Court SHALL designate the case number in this action as follows: 15 Case No. 1:21-cv-01015-DAD-BAM (PC); and 16 3. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District 17 of California. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: June 30, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28