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

Case 3:08-cv-00960-H-JMA

Document 3

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of California Office Of The Clerk 880 Front Street, Room 4290 San Diego, California 92101-8900 Phone: (619) 557-5600 Fax: (619) 702-9900 W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., Clerk of Court June 4, 2008 Clerk, U.S. District Court Central District of California - Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501 Re: Thomas Brooks v. Walter Myers, et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00960-H-JMA Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to Order transferring the above-entitled action to your District, we are electronically transmitting herewith our entire original file.

Sincerely yours, W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., Clerk of the Court By: s/ A. Garcia, Deputy Clerk Copy to Attorney for Plaintiffs: Copy to Attorney for Defendants:

Case 3:08-cv-00960-H-JMA

Document 3-2

Filed 06/03/2008

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THOMAS BROOKS, Inmate Booking #200814903, Plaintiff,
Civil No.

08-0960 H (JMA)

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)

vs. WALTER MYERS, Captain; St. GERMAIN, Correctional Deputy; GRESHAM, Correctional Deputy, Defendants.

Thomas Brooks ("Plaintiff"), a pretrial detainee currently housed at the Robert Presley

23 Detention Center ("RPDC") located in Riverside, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint. 24 In this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Captain of RPDC and two Riverside County Sheriff's 25 Department Deputies assigned to RPDC, violated his constitutional rights by using excessive 26 force against him and refusing to accommodate his disability. See Compl. at 1-5. Plaintiff has 27 not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead he has filed a 28 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\08cv0960-transfer-CDCAED.wpd

1

08cv0960

Case 3:08-cv-00960-H-JMA

Document 3-2

Filed 06/03/2008

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 of 7 citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district 8 where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in 9 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 10 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district 11 in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise 12 be brought."

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v.

13 Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). "The district court of a district 14 in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in 15 the interests of justice, transfer such case to any district in or division in which it could have 16 been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 17

Here, Plaintiff claims constitutional violations based on events which are alleged to have

18 occurred at RPDC, which is located in Riverside County. See Compl. at 1-2. Moreover, no 19 defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. 84(d) ("The Southern 20 District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego."). 21

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

22 to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), which places Riverside County within its judicial district, but not in the 23 Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. 24 25 26

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this

27 case for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice and for the convenience of all parties, 28 to the docket of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\08cv0960-transfer-CDCAED.wpd

2

08cv0960

Case 3:08-cv-00960-H-JMA

Document 3-2

Filed 06/03/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).1 2 3 DATED: June 3, 2008 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
Because this Court finds transfer appropriate, it defers ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP [Doc. No. 2] to the Central District of California, Eastern Division, and expresses no opinion as to whether Plaintiff's Complaint alleges facts sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 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); see also Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 44647 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing sua sponte screening per 28 U.S.C.§ 1915A(b)).
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\H\08cv0960-transfer-CDCAED.wpd

____________________________________ MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

3

08cv0960