Opinion
No. CIV S-10-1557-CMK.
July 1, 2010
ORDER
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff seeks to invoke this court's diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For cases such as this, which are based on diversity jurisdiction, the federal venue statute requires that the action 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 is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commences, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a). Here, the claim(s) arose in Riverside County, which is within the boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Therefore, the court finds that this action most appropriately proceeds in that district. In the interest of justice, the court will transfer this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
On the face of the complaint, it appears that diversity jurisdiction does not lie in this case. Specifically, plaintiff states that he is a citizen of California and also admits that one of the defendants — Sue Summerset — is also a citizen of California. Therefore, complete diversity appears to be absent.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.