Walter Sayles v. Amaya, et al.
- 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 the claims arose 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“Accordingly, 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 the Eastern District of California was an improper venue because the events occurred in San Diego County (Southern District of California) and no defendants resided in the Eastern District. 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. The decision follows logically from the statutory venue requirements and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct statutory provisions for venue and transfer. It correctly identifies the factual basis for improper venue (events in San Diego County) and applies the standard remedy (transfer under § 1406(a)). The citation to Starnes v. McGuire is appropriate for a pro se prisoner case context. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this straightforward venue determination.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WALTER SAYLES, Case No. 2:26-cv-0003-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 AMAYA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 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, the complaint does not reflect that any of defendants reside in this district, 28 and plaintiff’s claims arose in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of California. 1 | See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Thus, this action should have been filed in the United States District Court 2 | for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 3 || complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 4 | McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 6 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 7 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
° Dated: _ January 8, 2026 sa 10 awe D. PE i ERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28