Wade v. Miller

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 9, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-0708
• Status: Published

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 E. K. WADE, No. 2:13-cv-0861 MCE CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF MILLER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The federal venue statute requires that a civil

18 action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district

19 where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in

20 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a

21 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in

22 which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be

23 brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

24 In this case, it appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims

25 occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff repeatedly references actions which occurred in

26 the District of Columbia and the complaint expressly alleges that a substantial part of the events

27 giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the District of Columbia. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should

28 have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the interest of 1 1 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.

2 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 United

4 States District Court for the District of Columbia.

5 Dated: May 9, 2013 _____________________________________ 6 CAROLYN K. DELANEY 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20 21

26 27

28 2