Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01996-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERMAN D. MANNING,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S 08-1996 DAD P

vs.

C.M.C. EAST STAFF, et al.,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and currently confined at California

Men’s Colony, has filed a letter with the court in which he alleges that his civil rights have been

violated and that his life is in imminent danger. Plaintiff has not submitted a civil rights form

complaint and no other pleadings have been filed by plaintiff. In addition, plaintiff has not

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, 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). 

Case 2:08-cv-01996-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/04/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Here, all of plaintiff’s allegations relate to events that allegedly took place at

California Men’s Colony and, therefore, none of the potential defendants to a civil rights action

reside in this district. It appears that any claims which plaintiff may be attempting to present

arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is located within the Central District of California. 

Therefore, any complaint which plaintiff may elect to file presenting such claims would properly

be filed 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

The undersigned is mindful of the shortcomings of plaintiff’s filing with this

court. Nonetheless, in the interest of justice and in light of the serious nature of the allegations

set forth in plaintiff’s letter, the court will transfer the matter to the district where plaintiff’s

claims could be properly brought.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

DATED: September 3, 2008.

DAD:9

mann1996.21

Case 2:08-cv-01996-DAD Document 3 Filed 09/04/08 Page 2 of 2