Chaz Nelson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
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 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 find that venue was proper in the Southern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Imperial County, which is within that district. The court also correctly cited 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) as the authority permitting transfer to a district where the action could have been brought. The reasoning is straightforward and supported by the cited statutes. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory authorities for venue and transfer. The factual basis for the transfer (events occurring in Imperial County) is sufficient to support the conclusion that the Southern District of California is the proper venue. The order is concise and directly addresses the issue of improper venue.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHAZ NELSON, 1:25-cv-01344-SAB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATIONS,
16 Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 Imperial 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 6 | 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 8 | States District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 11 | Dated: _ October 14, 2025 : STANLEY A. BOONE 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >