Ivan Quintana v. D. Sanchez, 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“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 the claim arose in San Diego County, which is within the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Since the events occurred in San Diego, the Eastern District of California lacked proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The transfer is a correct application of the venue and transfer statutes. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the federal venue statute to determine that the claim arose in the Southern District of California. It then correctly applies the transfer statute to move the case to the proper district. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
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 IVAN QUINTANA, No. 2:25-cv-3535 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. SANCHEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 18 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the claim arose in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of 28 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 1 | for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 2 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 3 || 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 7 || Dated: December 15, 2025 4 aA Cn Ye \L CHI 500 KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 | /quin3535.21 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28