(PC) Juarez v. Abdi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
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 and the defendants reside in San Diego County. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 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) to find that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the events occurred in San Diego County and the defendants reside there. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case to a district where it could have been brought if it is in the interest of justice. The transfer is a standard procedural remedy for improper venue. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory basis for venue and applies it to the facts recited (events in San Diego, defendants in San Diego). It correctly cites the transfer statute and a supporting Ninth Circuit case. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine venue transfer order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS SALAZAR JUAREZ, 1:25-cv-00663-CDB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 Y. ABDI, et al., 15 Defendants.
16 17 Plaintiff Luis Salazar Juarez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 21 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 22 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 23 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 24 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 25 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 26 1391(b). 27 In this case, Plaintiff brings claims of cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate 28 indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, arising from events that 1 | occurred at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego County. All of the named 2 | Defendants are alleged to work and reside in San Diego County. Accordingly, because a 3 | substantial part of the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim occurred in San Diego County and 4 | because the Defendants allegedly are (or were) employed at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 5 | Facility, Plaintiffs action should have been filed in the United States District Court for the 6 | Southern District of California. 7 A case in which venue is improper may be transferred to a proper venue if transfer is “in 8 | the interest of justice.” Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist., M.E.B.A. v. State of Alaska, 682 F.2d 797. 9 | 799 n.3 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 11 || States District Court for the Southern District of California. 12 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 1S) Dated: _ June 4, 2025 | hr 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28