Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00247/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00247-0/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUILLERMO VERA,

CDCR #K-73387,

Civil

No. 13cv0247 JLS (BGS)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

AS MOOT AND DISMISSING

CIVIL ACTION FOR LACK OF

PROPER VENUE PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

[ECF Doc. No. 5]

 vs.

DIRECTOR OF CDCR; 

RAFAEL DIAS, Warden; 

CLEMENTS OGBUEHY, Nurse

Practitioner; TIMOTHY BYERS, Physician

Assistant,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California State Prison in

Corcoran, California (CSP-COR), and proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 28, 2013. 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff claims the Director of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and several California Substance Abuse

Treatment Facility (SATF) officials, violated his rights to adequate medical care,

access to the court, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishments during his

incarceration there in 2011 and early 2012. (Compl. at 2-3.)

-1- 13cv0247 JLS (BGS)

Case 3:13-cv-00247-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 06/26/13 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 20, 2013, the Court dismissed the action for two reasons. First,

Plaintiff failed to prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and did

not seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

See Feb. 20, 2013 Order [ECF Doc. No. 2] at 2, 3. Second, “while the Court would

normally grant Plaintiff an opportunity to either submit the full filing fee or file a

Motion to Proceed IFP, an initial review of the Complaint further reveal[ed] that

[Plaintiff’s] case lacks proper venue.” Id. at 2. Specifically, the Court found that:

[w]hile Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at CSP-COR, [...] he fails to allege a county of residence for any Defendant, [...] claims the substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred while he was incarcerated at SATF

in Corcoran, California, and the exhibits attached to his

Complaint indicate Defendants Dias, Ogbuehy and Byers are CDCR officials employed at SATF.1

 (See Compl. at 2; Exs. [ECF No. 1-1] at 13, 14, 16, 23.) The City of Corcoran is located in Kings County, California. Therefore, venue is

proper in the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(b), but not in the Southern District of California,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(d) (“The Southern District [of

California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488. 

Therefore, the Court dismissed the action sua sponte but without prejudice to

Plaintiff’s re-filing it in the proper district. Id. at 2-3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a)).

On June 3, 2013, however, Plaintiff re-opened the case in this Court by filing a

Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF Doc. No. 5], without any explanation or amendment

which might show how or why venue lies in the Southern District of California.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed IFP [ECF Doc. No. 5] as moot. Plaintiff’s case remains dismissed in this

Court without prejudice for lack of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Should Plaintiff wish to pursue the claims alleged in his Complaint, he should do so

1

 The only remaining Defendant is the “Director of the CDCR.” (Compl. at 1.) The CDCR is

headquartered in Sacramento, California. The City and County of Sacramento are also located in the

Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

-2- 13cv0247 JLS (BGS)

Case 3:13-cv-00247-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 06/26/13 Page 2 of 3
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

by filing a civil action in the Eastern District of California, as that district appears to

be the only proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1391(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 26, 2013

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

-3- 13cv0247 JLS (BGS)

Case 3:13-cv-00247-JLS-BGS Document 6 Filed 06/26/13 Page 3 of 3