(PC) Blackman v. Gomez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se civil rights complaint filed in the Eastern District of California and determined that venue was improper because 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“Accordingly, 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 find that venue was proper in the Southern District of California because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there. The court also correctly cited 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) as the authority to transfer a case to the proper district. The reasoning is straightforward and supported by the cited statutes. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutory provisions for venue and transfer. It relies on a D.C. Circuit case for a general proposition about transfer, which is acceptable but not binding on the Eastern District of California; however, the statutory basis is sufficient. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motion/order at hand.
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 TONY BLACKMAN, Case No. 2:21-cv-00821-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 B. GOMEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 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 In this case, the complaint does not reflect that any of defendants reside in this district, 28 and plaintiff’s claims arose in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of California. 1 | See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Thus, this action should have been filed in the United States District Court 2 | forthe Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 3 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 4 | McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 6 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 7 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
° Dated: _ May 14, 2021 ssn (oto. 10 JEREMY D,. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28