IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 1, 2009
DARRYL STOKES, PLAINTIFF,
DY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Bivens action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in King County, Washington, which is in the Western District of Washington. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; and
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.