Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Timmy O'neil Charity v. Board of Parole Hearings Chairperson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 12, 2011

TIMMY O'NEIL CHARITY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS CHAIRPERSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, California. Plaintiff, who proceeds without counsel, has filed a pleading designated a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, although the contents of the petition suggest that plaintiff may be seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under either construction, the pleading was improperly filed in this court.

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 Riverside 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 interests 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 motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or motion to appoint counsel; and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

20110412

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.