Wilbur Lann Pittman v. M. Hagemann, 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 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 the Southern District of California was the proper venue because the events giving rise to the claim occurred in San Diego County. 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 Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is improper. The decision follows from the law and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutes and binding Ninth Circuit precedent. It correctly identifies the venue statute, applies it to the facts (events in San Diego County), and cites the transfer statute and a relevant case to support the transfer. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine venue transfer order.
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 WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, Case No. 1:26-cv-00110-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 M. HAGEMANN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Wilbur Lann Pittman (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) 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 in which 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 claims appear to have arisen in San Diego County, which is in the 28 Southern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should have been filed in the United 1 States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal 2 court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 3 1406(a); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 2000). 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: January 13, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28