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.

Noe Gabriel Gutierrez Ramirez v. Kathering Lipel

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


April 23, 2012

NOE GABRIEL GUTIERREZ RAMIREZ,
PETITIONER,
v.
KATHERING LIPEL, RESPONDENT.

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

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, California (Riverside County). On March 26, 2012, petitioner initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 1.) In response to the court's order that he must pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 3), petitioner submitted an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6), and a second pleading, designated a civil rights complaint (Dkt. No. 4). Review of both pleadings, which are set forth on forms utilized in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego County), indicates that petitioner may be attempting to bring a state law civil suit against his former attorney.

While petitioner's allegations may not state a cognizable federal claim, the court will transfer this action to the appropriate federal court for that determination. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action "may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 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).

In the instant case, the named defendant is located, and the claims apparently arose, in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division), sitting in Riverside; and

3. All future filings shall reference the newly assigned case number, and shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Central District of California (Eastern Division) 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside CA 92501

SO ORDERED.

20120423

© 1992-2012 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.