(PC) Turner v. Williams
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint filed in the Eastern District of California regarding conditions of confinement in San Diego. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as the proper venue.
| 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 defendants reside in and the events occurred in San Diego, which is within the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), this is the proper venue. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer to a district where the action could have been brought, to correct the venue error. The reasoning is legally sound and supported by the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the federal venue statute and the transfer statute. It identifies the factual basis for improper venue (defendants and events in San Diego) and cites the appropriate legal authority for transfer. 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 MICHAEL WAYNE TURNER, No. 2:20-cv-1667 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 K. WILLIAMS, 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, challenging conditions of his prior confinement at R.J. Donovan Correctional 19 Facility in San Diego. 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 defendants are located and the claim arose in San Diego, which is in the 28 Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United 1 || States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal 2 || court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 3 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 | DATED: August 21, 2020 ~ 7 Attten— Lhar—e_ ALLISON CLAIRE 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