Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01743/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01743-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ROY HAROLD KELLY, No. CIV S-06-1743 DFL-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs ORDER.

CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action, apparently

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff

has paid the statutory filing fee. 

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.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In

this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Jose, California,

Case 2:06-cv-01743-DFL-CMK Document 5 Filed 08/17/06 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

which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been

filed in the United States District Court for the Northern 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:

1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California;

2. The order setting status conference, issued on August 8, 2006, is vacated;

3. Upon transfer of this case, plaintiff should obtain instruction from the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California with respect to issuance of

new summonses; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this file.

DATED: August 16, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01743-DFL-CMK Document 5 Filed 08/17/06 Page 2 of 2