(PC) Traver v. Driskill
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se prisoner filed a civil rights action in the Eastern District of California, but the court found that the defendant did not reside in the district and the events occurred in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to 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 determine that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the defendant did not reside there and the events occurred in San Diego County (Southern District of California). 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 Starnes v. McGuire supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is wrong. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory provisions for venue and transfer. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine transfer order based on clear venue defects. It does not address potential counter-arguments (e.g., whether the plaintiff could argue an alternative venue basis), but given the facts recited (defendant not resident, events in SDCA), the result is legally sound.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESSE TRAVER, 1:25-cv-00664-SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 BRENT R. DRISKILL, 15 Defendant.
16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 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 Here, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego County, 28 which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim should have been filed 1 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of 2 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 5 States District Court for the Southern District of California. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: June 4, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28