Ramsell-Sanchez v. Trump et al, No. 1:2022cv00085 - Document 4 (D.N.M. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA by Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing. (ccp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ramsell-Sanchez v. Trump et al Doc. 4 Case 1:22-cv-00085-LF Document 4 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO KRISSY RAMSELL-SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:22-cv-00085-LF DONALD TRUMP, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed February 7, 2022. For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this case and TRANSFERS this case to the Central District of California. The statute governing venue in general states: Venue in general.--A civil action may be brought in— (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-00085-LF Document 4 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiff asserts claims against the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, employees of the City of Downey, which is located in Los Angeles County, and Donald Trump." Complaint at 1-7. Plaintiff asserts, among other things, due process claims arising from Defendants' removal of Plaintiff's child, illegal search and unlawful arrest. See Complaint at 9, 12-13, 17 It appears from the allegations that a substantial part of the events giving rise to her claims occurred in the County of Los Angeles, the State of California. The Court concludes that the District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this case under § 1391(b) because there are no allegations that a defendant resides in the District of New Mexico or that any of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the District of New Mexico. The Court transfers this case to the Central District of California because the events giving rise to this case occurred in, and many of the Defendants reside in, the Central District of California. The Court notifies Plaintiff that this Court, having transferred the case to the Central District of California, cannot grant Plaintiff any relief. The Court also notifies Plaintiff that this Court will not consider, and will not transfer to the Central District of California, any additional documents that Plaintiff files in this case. Any documents relevant to this case that Plaintiff wishes to file must be filed in the Central District of California. IT IS ORDERED that: (i) This case is TRANSFERRED to the Central District of California. (ii) The Clerk shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. ______________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.
