Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00913/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00913-0/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

 On October 29, 2004, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the 1

Director of the Department of Corrections was ordered to withdraw the filing fee from plaintiff’s

trust account statement.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0913 FCD JFM P

vs.

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS,

LANCASTER STATE PRISON,

et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil

1

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed March 9, 2005, plaintiff’s second

amended complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff has filed a third amended complaint pressing claims

concerning interference to his access to the courts. However, plaintiff has now identified as main

defendants Sgt. Huerta, Officer Dottaviano and Captain H.T. Brown, all of whom are employed

at Lancaster State Prison, and Chief Deputy Warden Montiero of Los Angeles. The alleged

Case 2:04-cv-00913-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 07/28/05 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

holding of plaintiff’s legal mail occurred at Lancaster State Prison and plaintiff pursued his

administrative remedies at Lancaster as well. 

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). 

In this case, most of the defendants are located and a substantial part of the events

giving rise to plaintiff’s claim arose in Lancaster, California, which is in the Central District of

California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been 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).

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

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

DATED: July 27, 2005. 

/001; mcki0913.21a

Case 2:04-cv-00913-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 07/28/05 Page 2 of 2