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.

Miramontes v. Gower

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 17, 2015

PEDRO MIRAMONTES, Plaintiff,
v.
L. GOWER, et al., Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

CHARLES F. EICK, Magistrate Judge.

On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff, a state prisoner presently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center at Norco, California, filed: (1) a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and (2) a "Motion for Relief from Government Code section 945.4, etc." Plaintiff's claims arise out of events commencing when Plaintiff, while incarcerated at the California Correctional Center at Susanville, California ("CCC"), allegedly sought an "Olsen review"[1] of his central prison file. Defendants are a CCC correctional counselor, a CCC appeals screener, a CCC appeals coordinator, the CCC Chief Deputy Warden, and a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Appeals Examiner allegedly located in Sacramento, California.

Susanville is a city in Lassen County, California, which is located within the Eastern District of California. See Pamer v. Schwarzenegger, 2007 WL 2600726 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007); 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Sacramento is a city in Sacramento County, California, which is also located within the Eastern District of California. See Vera v. Director of CDCR, 2013 WL 5705599 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2013); 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

Section 1391(b) of Title 28, United States Code, provides:

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 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Here, it appears that all Defendants reside in the Eastern District of California, and that the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's purported claims allegedly occurred within the Eastern District of California. Therefore, venue appears improper in the Central District of California.

Section 1406(a) of Title 28, United States Code, provides:

The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.

This Court has the power to decide the venue issue on its own motion and to dismiss or transfer the action before a responsive pleading is filed. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, if any there be, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on the ground that venue is improper in the Central District of California. Failure timely to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the transfer of the action.[2]


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.