Juan Carlos Calderon v. K. Mencias
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se prisoner filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California against a defendant located in San Diego County. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California as the proper venue.
| 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 defendant resides and the events occurred in the Southern District of California, making it the proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 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 when a case is filed in the wrong district. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue statute and the transfer statute. It identifies the proper district based on the defendant's location and the events giving rise to the claim. The citation to Starnes v. McGuire is appropriate for the proposition that transfer is a valid remedy for improper venue. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN CARLOS CALDERON, Case No. 2:25-cv-3475-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. MENCIAS, 15 Defendant. 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 neither filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor paid the filing fee for this action. 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 defendant is located and the claim arose in San Diego County, which is in 28 the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the 1 | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 2 | federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 3 | 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 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 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 | Dated: _ January 27, 2026 _ gene Ws JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28