Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00900/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00900-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY A. AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SAN 

FRANCISCO SUPERIOR COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:20-cv-00180-NONE-SKO

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff Gregory A. Austin, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint 

against Defendants “State of California, San Francisco Superior Court,” and six judges of the San 

Francisco Superior Court, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) 

The complaint purports to petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but alleges 

claims related to a civil restraining order entered in “divorce proceedings” and does not allege that 

Plaintiff is incarcerated, on probation, or on parole, and thus it appears the case is properly 

designated as a regular civil action. (See generally Doc. 1.) 

Case 3:20-cv-00900-CRB Document 3 Filed 02/05/20 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

27

28

2

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 

jurisdiction, be brought 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).

Plaintiff resides within this judicial district,1but is not in custody, and none of the Defendants

reside in this district.2 In addition, the claims in the complaint arose in connection with family court

proceedings in San Francisco Superior Court, (see Doc. 1 at 1), which is located in the San Francisco 

Division of the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit should have been filed in 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. In 

the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the 

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 

1092–93 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 Plaintiff lists his address as 824 E. Swift, Fresno, California 93704. (See Doc. 1 at 1.)

2 Each of the Defendants are in San Francisco, California. (See Doc. 1 at 1.)

3 In view of the transfer, this Court has not ruled on Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2).

Case 3:20-cv-00900-CRB Document 3 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2