(PC) Miranda v. Falcon
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Kendall J. Newman (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint filed in the Eastern District of California and determined that the defendants reside 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 identified that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the defendants reside in and the events occurred in the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The court's application of the venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)) and the transfer statute is consistent with federal law. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutes for venue and transfer. The factual basis for the transfer (defendants' location and events' location) is clearly stated. The citation to Starnes v. McGuire is appropriate for the proposition that transfer is a discretionary remedy for improper venue. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this straightforward procedural 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 JAVIER MIRANDA, No. 2:21-cv-0686 KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R. FALCON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1915. 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 County, which is 28 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 28 3 | 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 | Dated: April 20, 2021 Frese Arn g KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 /mira0686.21a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28