Free Case Transferred Out to Another District - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00445-LAB-LSP

Document 3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Michael Handford Farris ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution ("CCI") in Tehachapi, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims various correctional officials and medical personnel provided him with inadequate medical treatment for hemorrhoids while he was incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") in Norco, California, during the months of December 2006 and January 2007. (See Compl. at 1, 4-8.) Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, as well as general and punitive damages and recoupment of medical costs. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. vs. GUILLERMINA HALL, Warden; MOSLEY, Registered Nurse; DOMINIQUE, Registered Nurse; INA HAUGEN, Chief Psychologist; MICHAEL BROWNELL, Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MICHAEL HANDFORD FARRIS, CDCR #E-44061, Plaintiff, Civil No. 08-0445 LAB (LSP)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL ACTION FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

K : \C O M M O N \ E V E R Y O N E \ _ E F IL E - P R O S E \L A B \ 0 8 c v0 4 4 5 - tr an s fe r .w p d

1

08cv0445

Case 3:08-cv-00445-LAB-LSP

Document 3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I. L ACK OF P ROPER V ENUE Upon initial review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff's case lacks proper venue. Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). "A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, 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); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). "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 interests of justice, transfer such case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CCI in Tehachapi, but claims constitutional violations based on events which are alleged to have occurred at CRC in Norco, which is located in Riverside County. See Compl. at 1-3. Moreover, no defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. 84(d) ("The Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego."). Instead, Defendants are instead alleged to reside in Riverside County. See Compl. at 2-3; see also 28 U.S.C. § 84(c) ("The Central District [of California] comprises 3 divisions. (1) The Eastern Division comprises the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino."). Therefore, venue is proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), but not in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. ///

K : \C O M M O N \ E V E R Y O N E \ _ E F IL E - P R O S E \L A B \ 0 8 c v0 4 4 5 - tr an s fe r .w p d

2

08cv0445

Case 3:08-cv-00445-LAB-LSP

Document 3

Filed 03/14/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: March 14, 2008

II. C ONCLUSION AND O RDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice and for the convenience of all parties, to the docket of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1

H ONORABLE L ARRY A LAN B URNS United States District Judge

Because the Court finds transfer appropriate, it defers ruling on Plaintiff's Motionsto Proceed IFP to the Central District [Doc. No. 2] and expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiffs' Complaint states claims sufficient to survive the mandatory sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2) require court to dismiss complaints filed by prisoners which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim or seeking damages from immune defendants).
K : \C O M M O N \ E V E R Y O N E \ _ E F IL E - P R O S E \L A B \ 0 8 c v0 4 4 5 - tr an s fe r .w p d

1

3

08cv0445