Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01420/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01420-0/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

VIKRAM BILLA,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1420 LKK GGH P

vs.

JIM TILTON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

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).

Venue of this action is technically appropriate in the Eastern District of California

because the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (hereafter

“CDC Director”) resides in this district. Nevertheless, the court is transferring this action to the

Case 2:07-cv-01420-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 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

Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in the interests of justice for the

following reasons.

It is clear that plaintiff is suing the CDC Director solely in a respondeat superior

capacity. Additionally, plaintiff is seeking monetary damages only and has not stated a claim for

injunctive relief. As such, the CDC Director is subject to be dismissed from this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Venue would then be

improper in this district because no defendant would be found here. Venue would also be

improper because the claims for which plaintiff seeks relief took place in the Northern District. 

Thus, it is appropriate that those claims be litigated in that district.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is transferred to the Northern

District of California.

DATED: 8/8/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:cm

bill1420.21c

Case 2:07-cv-01420-LKK -GGH Document 3 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2