Opinion
1:22-cv-00203-DAD-SKO
02-18-2022
CEDRIC GREENE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Defendant.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff Cedric Greene, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, along 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 1 defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant resides in this district. The claims are also alleged to have arisen in Los Angeles, California (see Doc. 1 at 3-4), which is in the Western Division of the Central District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff's suit should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. 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); Abrams Shell v. Shell Oil Co., 165 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Plaintiff's address is in Los Angeles, California. (See Doc. 1 at 1.) The complaint alleges that Defendant “is located in the City of Los Angeles.” (See id. at 2.)
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.
In view of the transfer, this Court has not ruled on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2