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

Case 3:07-cv-02182-L-PCL

Document 3

Filed 11/29/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY DARRELL JONES, CDCR #V-97917, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA YOUTH AUTHORITY, Defendant.

Civil No.

07-2182 L (PCL)

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)

Bobby Darrell Jones ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at the California State Prison

20 in Lancaster ("CSP-LAC"), California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 21 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that his First and Eighth Amendment rights were violated by 22 the California Youth Authority while he incarcerated at the Heman G. Stark Youth 23 Correctional Facility in Chino, California in March 2007. (Compl. at 1-5.) Plaintiff seeks 24 $180,000 in punitive damages. (Id. at 7.) 25

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a);

26 instead he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) 27 [Doc. No. 2]. 28 / / /

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07cv2182-transfer.wpd

1

07cv2182

Case 3:07-cv-02182-L-PCL

Document 3

Filed 11/29/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3

I. Lack of Proper Venue Upon initial review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff's case lacks proper

4 venue. Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a 5 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 6 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). "A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity 7 of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial 8 district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial 9 district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 10 occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a 11 judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the 12 action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker 13 Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). "The district 14 court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall 15 dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district in or division in 16 which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 17

Here, Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CSP-LAC, and claims constitutional

18 violations based on events which are alleged to have occurred at the Heman G. Stark Youth 19 Correctional Facility in Chino, which is located in San Bernardino County. (See Compl. at 1, 20 3.) Moreover, no defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District, which is comprised 21 only of San Diego or Imperial Counties. (Id.) See also 28 U.S.C. § 84(c) ("The Central 22 District [of California] comprises 3 divisions. (1) The Eastern Division comprises the 23 counties of Riverside and San Bernardino."); 28 U.S.C. 84(d) ("The Southern District [of 24 California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego."). 25

Therefore, venue is proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division,

26 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), but not in the Southern District of California. See 28 27 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. 28 / / /

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07cv2182-transfer.wpd

2

07cv2182

Case 3:07-cv-02182-L-PCL

Document 3

Filed 11/29/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

II. Conclusion and Order Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer

4 this case for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice and for the convenience of all 5 parties, to the docket of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 6 Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1 7 § 1406(a). 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Because the Court finds transfer appropriate, it defers ruling on the Motion to Proceed IFP to the Central District and expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiff's Complaint alleges facts sufficient to survive the mandatory sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A.
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\07cv2182-transfer.wpd

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 29, 2007 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

1

3

07cv2182