Ivie v. Vermont Judiciary

Full title: CHARLES IVIE, Plaintiff, v. VERMONT JUDICIARY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 8, 2015

2:14-cv-2935 TLN CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2015)

Opinion

CHARLES IVIE, Plaintiff, v. VERMONT JUDICIARY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:14-cv-2935 TLN CKD PS United States District Court, Eastern District of California January 8, 2015

          ORDER

          CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff does not allege a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The federal venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where 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 action, the incident giving rise to plaintiffs claims occurred in Burlington, Vermont. Therefore, plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court, District of Vermont. 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District, District of Vermont.