(PC) Sadowski v. Yang
- 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 defendants reside and the events occurred in the Southern District of California. 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 identified that under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in a district where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. The order states that defendants are located and the claim arose in San Diego County (S.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 in which it should have been brought. The decision follows directly from the statutory venue requirements and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and correctly applies the federal venue statute. It identifies the relevant statutory provisions, applies them to the specific facts (defendants and events in S.D. Cal.), and cites appropriate authority for the transfer power. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine venue transfer.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM SADOWSKI, No. 2:25-cv-2051 SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MARVIN YANG, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 18 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 19 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 20 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 21 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 22 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 23 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 24 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 25 In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in San Diego County, which is 26 in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the 27 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 28 federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 1 | US.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 3 || States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4 | DATED: August 4, 2025 fonfob 6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28