Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01173/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01173-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKHIEL J. LEINWEBER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAPTAIN COCHRANE, et al.,

Defendants. ____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 07-1173 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 5)

On February 27, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner at High Desert State Prison,

Susanville (“HDSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

in the above-titled action. Plaintiff alleges defendants, all HDSP employees, violated

plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 

Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a

responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is

proper in (1) the district in which 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 the 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). When venue is

Case 3:07-cv-01173-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the

interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

It is clear from the instant complaint and the attachments thereto that plaintiff’s claims

arise out of actions alleged to have been committed at HDSP by HDSP employees. HDSP is

located in Lassen County, California, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b). As a result, venue is proper in the Eastern District of

California, not in the Northern District. 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the above-titled action is hereby

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

light of the transfer, this Court will defer to the Eastern District with respect to plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis . 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 5 on this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 8, 2007 _____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01173-MMC Document 7 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 2