(PC) Swan v. Sedigh

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01934 · 2021-11-15 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:45Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a civil rights complaint filed by a pro se prisoner 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 Southern District of California and noted that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis had not yet been ruled upon.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to transfer case to the Southern District of California granted “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 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 improper in the Eastern District of California because no defendants resided there and the events giving rise to the claim 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 Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is wrong. The decision follows from the law and the facts recited in the order.
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis not ruled upon “2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)”	agree with court The court explicitly states it has not ruled on the IFP motion. This is a procedural status update rather than a substantive decision. It is consistent with the transfer order, as the receiving court will likely handle the IFP motion or the transferring court may have deferred it. No legal error is apparent in noting the pending status.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to transfer case to the Southern District of California granted

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 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 improper in the Eastern District of California because no defendants resided there and the events giving rise to the claim 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 Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa supports the proposition that transfer is appropriate in the interest of justice when venue is wrong. The decision follows from the law and the facts recited in the order.

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis not ruled upon

“2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)”

agree with court
The court explicitly states it has not ruled on the IFP motion. This is a procedural status update rather than a substantive decision. It is consistent with the transfer order, as the receiving court will likely handle the IFP motion or the transferring court may have deferred it. No legal error is apparent in noting the pending status.

The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the venue issue. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for venue (§ 1391(b)) and the authority for transfer (§ 1406(a)). The factual findings (defendants do not reside in EDCA, events occurred in SDCA) support the conclusion that venue was improper. The citation to Ravelo Monegro is appropriate for the context of transferring a pro se prisoner's case. The order is legally sound and complete for its purpose.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS ANTHONY SWAN, Case No. 1:21-cv-01652-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. 14 SEDIGH, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Marcus Anthony Swan (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed 18 a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a motion to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 20 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 21 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 22 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which 23 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 24 of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an 25 action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any 26 defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. 27 § 1391(b). 28 /// 1 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, Plaintiff’s 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); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 6 2000). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 9 California; and 10 2. This Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 11 2.) 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: November 15, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28