(PC) Gaither v. Williams.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-01089 · 2024-06-24 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:29Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint filed in the Eastern District of California and determined that venue was improper because the events occurred in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California and noted that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis had not yet been ruled upon.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to transfer case to the Southern District of California granted “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California”	agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which requires venue in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. The order recites that the claim arose in San Diego County (S.D. Cal.) and that no defendants reside in the E.D. Cal. Therefore, the E.D. Cal. lacked proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The citation to Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is improper.
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis left pending “2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)”	agree with court The court explicitly states it has not ruled on the IFP motion. This is a procedural status update rather than a substantive ruling. It is standard practice to note pending motions when transferring a case so the receiving court is aware of the status.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to transfer case to the Southern District of California granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California”

agree with court
The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which requires venue in a district where a substantial part of the events occurred. The order recites that the claim arose in San Diego County (S.D. Cal.) and that no defendants reside in the E.D. Cal. Therefore, the E.D. Cal. lacked proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The citation to Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is improper.

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis left pending

“2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)”

agree with court
The court explicitly states it has not ruled on the IFP motion. This is a procedural status update rather than a substantive ruling. It is standard practice to note pending motions when transferring a case so the receiving court is aware of the status.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory provisions for venue and transfer. It correctly identifies that the events occurred in the Southern District of California, making the Eastern District of California an improper venue. The citation to Ninth Circuit precedent is appropriate. The order is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional/venue issue.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURRELL A. GAITHER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00728-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 WILLIAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Burrell A. Gaither (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 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 22 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 23 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 24 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 25 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 26 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1391(b). 28 /// 1 In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego 2 County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have 3 been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the 4 interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 5 correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 6 2000). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 9 California; and 10 2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11 2.) 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: June 24, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28