Merrick Jose Moore v. Jeremiah James Duran, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se prisoner filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California, but the court determined the claim arose in San Diego County, which is 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 the 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. § 1406(a), a district court may transfer a case to another district if it is the proper venue. The court's application of the venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)) to the facts (claim arose in San Diego) supports the transfer. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory provisions for venue and transfer. However, it is a very brief order that does not explicitly state the standard of review for the transfer decision, though the application of the law is straightforward. It is a standard procedural 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MERRICK JOSE MOORE, Case No. 2:26-cv-0121-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEREMIAH JAMES DURAN, 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. 19 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 20 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 21 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 22 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 23 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 24 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 25 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the claim arose in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of 27 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 28 for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 1 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 2 | McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 4 | States District Court for the Southern District of California. 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
7 | Dated: _ January 27, 2026 _ gene Ws JEREMY D. PETERSON 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28