-GGH (PS) Greene v. Southland Transit Inc., No. 2:2011cv00551 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/10/11 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice.Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr; Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
-GGH (PS) Greene v. Southland Transit Inc. Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CEDRIC GREENE, 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, No. CIV.S. 11-0551 GEB GGH PS vs. SOUTHLAND TRANSIT, INC., Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and has filed a request to proceed in 17 forma pauperis. A review of the court docket for the Central District of California reveals that 18 plaintiff has filed over seventy actions in that district and that he has been ordered to show cause 19 why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant. See Greene v. Mens Central Jail, case no. 20 2:11-cv-00997-UA-SS, docket no. 2 (February 18, 2011). 21 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action based on diversity jurisdiction 22 be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in 23 the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 24 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 25 situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the 26 time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). 2 In this case, plaintiff’s pleading concedes that the proper venue is Los Angeles, 3 which is in the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court may dismiss 4 an action laying venue in the wrong district. 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 8 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 9 fourteen (14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file 10 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 11 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is 12 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 13 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 DATED: March 10, 2011 15 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 16 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 GGH:076 greene0551.ifp.wpd 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.