Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02890/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02890-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY BLACKMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOUNTAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01701-BAM (PC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

1

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

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where 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 the 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. 

 

1 The Court notes, without deciding, that Plaintiff may be subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See, e.g., Blackman v. 

Hartwell, Case No. 1:99-cv-05822-REC-HGB (E.D. Cal.); Blackman v. Taxdahl, Case No. 1:04-cv-06389-AWI-LJO 

(E.D. Cal.); Blackman v. Medina, Case No. 3:05-cv-05390-SI (N.D. Cal.).

Case 3:18-cv-02890-LAB-RBM Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> 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

§ 1391(b).

In this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego

County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have 

been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 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); Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir. 

2000).

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

States District Court for the Southern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2018 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-02890-LAB-RBM Document 2 Filed 12/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2