Ihab Kifah Nadhim v. Shantal Hernandez, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
A pro se state prisoner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in the Eastern District of California, but the court found that no defendants resided in the district and the events occurred 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 applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) to determine that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because no defendants resided there and the events occurred in San Diego County (Southern District of California). 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 venue is wrong. The decision follows logically from the statutory framework and the facts recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the venue statute, applies the facts (defendants not in EDCA, events in SDCA) to the statute, and cites the correct transfer statute and supporting case law. 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 IHAB KIFAH NADHIM, 1:26-cv-04839-EPG (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SHANTAL HERNANDEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 where 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 28 ] In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego 2 || County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have 3 || been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the 4 || interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 5 || correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 6 || 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 8 || States District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 '0 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1] * | DATED: _June 25, 2026 jp) See Fey — 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >