(PC) Reynolds v. Crlollos
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's 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“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 improper in the Eastern District of California because the defendants did not reside 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 district court may transfer a case to the district in which it should have been brought if venue is improper. The order recites sufficient facts (defendants' residence and location of events) to support the transfer. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutes and case law. However, it is a very brief order that does not explicitly address whether the plaintiff consented to the transfer or if the transfer was made sua sponte, though this is common in pro se prisoner cases. The reasoning is sufficient to support the outcome.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRONE REYNOLDS, 1:22-cv-01486-SKO (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 R. CRLOLLOS, 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. 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 // 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 6 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 8 States District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: November 21, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28