IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 5, 2009
ROBERTO CHAIDEZ, PLAINTIFF,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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 the 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, only four of the eighteen defendants -- the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation , N. Grannis, Corcoran State Prison, and T. Scott -- reside in this district. The claim arose, and nearly all of the events at issue occurred, in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District of California. It is clear from a review of the complaint that the center of gravity of this case is in the Southern District of California, and that any relationship with this district is minimal. For that reason, the case will be transferred to the Southern District of California. 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 this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.