Miar K Gainer v. Timothy Cross et al
Filing
3
ORDER Transferring Case To The Central District Of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/28/2013. CASE TRANSFERRED to Central District of California.(Fahrney, E) [Transferred from California Eastern on 8/30/2013.]
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MIAR K. GAINER,
12
13
14
15
16
17
1:13-cv-01346-GSA (PC)
Plaintiff,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
vs.
TIMOTHY CROSS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. On August 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action, together
19
with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.)
20
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
21
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
22
reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
23
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action
24
is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in
25
which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
26
In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in Riverside
27
County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been
28
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of
-1-
1
justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See
2
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:
4
(1)
5
6
of California; and
(2)
7
8
9
This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on August 22, 2013,
remains pending.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe
August 28, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
