Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01135/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER GRAVES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES MARSHALL OFFICE, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01640-JD 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

Pro se plaintiff Peter Graves, which is apparently an alias according to the complaint, filed 

this federal civil rights claim against the United States Marshall’s Office and other government 

actors. Dkt. No. 1. His claim relates to events that allegedly occurred at a courthouse in 

Sacramento, California, which is located within the Eastern District of California. Id.; see 28 

U.S.C. § 84. Plaintiff has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3. 

The case is transferred to the Eastern District of California. When jurisdiction is not 

founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all 

of the defendants reside in the same state, (2) the 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). Where a case is 

filed in the wrong venue, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the case or transfer it 

to the proper federal court “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Venue may be raised 

by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time 

for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Case 2:15-cv-01135-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Northern District of California is the wrong venue for this action. Plaintiff’s claims 

relate to events that allegedly took place in Sacramento and within the Eastern District of 

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. Venue of this action therefore lies there, not here. Accordingly, 

in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), it is ordered that this action be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In light of the 

transfer, this Court will not decide plaintiff’s pending motion. 

The Court notes that plaintiff filed in this district because he believes all the federal judges 

in the Eastern District have a conflict of interest. Dkt. No. 1 at 34. The Court does not address 

this issue and leaves it for disposition by the judge assigned in the Eastern District if plaintiff 

chooses to raise the alleged conflicts argument there. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01135-WBS-EFB Document 5 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2