Opinion
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)
BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
Frank Muro Flores ("Plaintiff"), currently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center ("CRC") in Norco, California, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that various CRC medical and inmate appeals officials violated his "right to proper medical care" and that their "negligent indifference" "cost [him] the sight in [his] right eye." (Compl. at 5-8.)
Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
I. LACK OF PROPER VENUE
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 claims constitutional violations originally arising out of events which are alleged to have occurred at CRC in Norco, California, which is located in Riverside County. ( See Compl. at 3-4.) Moreover, all Defendants are alleged to work and/or reside at CRC in Norco; none is alleged to reside in the Southern District, which is comprised only of San Diego or Imperial Counties. ( Id. ) See also 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1) ("The Eastern Division [of the Central District of California] comprises the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino."); 28 U.S.C. 84(d) ("The Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.").
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.
II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
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).
Because the Court finds transfer appropriate, it 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. 1915A(b). See Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) & (2) which require court to dismiss complaints filed by prisoners which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim or seeking damages from immune defendants). Nor does it express an opinion as to whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) would require similar sua sponte dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint should he elect to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) in the Central District. 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).