Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

 To the extent that this order may be dispositive, the court does not require the consent of

Defendants because Defendants have not been served and therefore are not parties under the meaning

of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). See Ornelas v. De Frantz, No. 00-1067 JCS, 2000 WL 973684, at *2 n.2 (N.D.

Cal. June 29, 2000) (citing Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (magistrate judge had

jurisdiction to dismiss prisoner's civil rights action without consent of defendants because defendants

had not been served yet and therefore were not parties)).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-04426 DMR

ORDER GRANTING IFP

APPLICATION AND TRANSFERRING

CASE TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA

On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff Devon Bradford filed an application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Docket No. 2.] On September 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed a consent to

proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.1

 [Docket No. 5.] A

court may authorize a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment of fees or

security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or

provide such security. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Having evaluated Plaintiff's financial affidavit, the

court finds that he has satisfied the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and

grants the application to proceed IFP. 

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 10/17/12 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 In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he is filing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that this

Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, a case in which

jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of citizenship may be filed only in: 

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are

residents of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be

brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant

is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

2

The court’s grant of Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP, however, does not mean that he

may continue to prosecute his complaint in this Court. According to Plaintiff’s complaint, the

incident that forms the basis of his complaint took place in Modesto, California in Stanislaus

County, and Plaintiff lives in Modesto. Based on Plaintiff’s allegations, it appears that the proper

venue for this case is the Eastern District of California because that is where “a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).2 When a

plaintiff files his or her case in the wrong district, the court must either dismiss the case or transfer it

to the District Court in the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

On September 12, 2012, the court issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be

transferred to the Eastern District of California and ordered Plaintiff to show legal authority for

venue in this district by no later than September 26, 2012. [Docket No. 6.] Plaintiff did not

respond. Accordingly, the court hereby orders the clerk to transfer this case to the Eastern District

of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 17, 2012

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 7 Filed 10/17/12 Page 2 of 2