Michael L. Overton v. Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
A pro se state prisoner filed a civil rights complaint in the Eastern District of California without paying the filing fee, but the court determined the claim 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 where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Since the Eastern District of California was an improper venue, the court had the authority to transfer the case to the proper district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 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 is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the federal venue statute to the facts stated (claim arose in San Diego County) and cites the appropriate statutory authority for transfer. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a 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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL L. OVERTON, No. 2:26-cv-1685 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, 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 not filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 1915, or paid the court’s filing fee. 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: September 9, 2026 4 aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM ? lover 685.21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28