Victor Pacheco v. County of Monterey, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTOR PACHECO, Case No. 1:26-cv-00221-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.

14 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Victor Pacheco (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 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 in which 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 In this case, the claims appear to have arisen in Monterey County, which is in the 28 Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in the United 1 States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal 2 court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 3 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 States District Court for the Northern District of California. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: January 15, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

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