Michael L. Overton v. R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se prisoner filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California without paying the filing fee or filing an IFP application, despite the defendants and events being located in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
| 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 venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)) was not satisfied in the Eastern District of California because the defendants reside and the events occurred in San Diego County (Southern District of California). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may transfer a case to the district in which it should have been brought. The court’s application of the venue statute and the transfer statute is legally sound based on the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the federal venue statute to the facts presented (defendants and events in San Diego County) and cites the appropriate statutory authority for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect (improper venue).
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHAEL L. OVERTON, No. 2:26-cv-0986 CSK P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 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(s) are located and the claim arose in San Diego County, which 28 is in 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 7 || Dated: March 25, 2026 4 aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM ? UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 /V/over0986.21a 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28