IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 14, 2010
DAVID UPTON, PLAINTIFF,
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. On March 26, 2010, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has not provided a completed application and instead submitted a notice stating why he could not comply with the court's order. However, this action is more properly brought in the Central District of California.
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, the defendants do not reside in this district.*fn1The claim arose in San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central 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:
1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis; and
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.