Opinion
1:23-cv-01397-BAM (PC)
10-19-2023
DAVID GAMBOA, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER BANUELOS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff David Gamboa, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.)
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In this case, ten of the fourteen named defendants do not reside in this district. It also appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff should have initiated his claims in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Four of the named defendants are located in Kern County, California, which is in Eastern District of California, and certain of the events are alleged to have occurred in this judicial district. However, the precipitating, and majority of, events alleged in the complaint arose in Los Angeles County.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has not ruled on Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.