0% found this document useful (0 votes)
45 views2 pages

(PC) Daryl D. Gray v. Risk Managment Branch Et Al - Document No. 3

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to District of CA/Central signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/31/07. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M) 1:2007cv01250 California Eastern District Court

Uploaded by

Justia.com
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
45 views2 pages

(PC) Daryl D. Gray v. Risk Managment Branch Et Al - Document No. 3

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to District of CA/Central signed by Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/31/07. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M) 1:2007cv01250 California Eastern District Court

Uploaded by

Justia.com
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

(PC) Daryl D. Gray v. Risk Managment Branch et al Doc.

Case 1:07-cv-01250-LJO-SMS Document 3 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DARYL DWIGHT GRAY 1:07-cv-01250- LJO- SMS (PC)
12 Plaintiff,
13 vs. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
14 RISK MANAGEMENT
BRANCH, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16 /
17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
18 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
21 reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
22 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action
23 is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in
24 which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
25 In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in Los Angeles
26 County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been
27 filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of
28 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:07-cv-01250-LJO-SMS Document 3 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 2 of 2

1 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States
3 District Court for the Central District of California.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 Dated: August 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder
i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

You might also like