Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02004/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02004-1/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

 The court has determined by reviewing petitioner’s amended complaint and his 1

petitions for writ of mandamus, filed on October 2, 2006, that his claims relate to his criminal

conviction in Pennsylvania.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2004 WBS DAD P

vs.

DEBORAH RUGGERIO, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner confined in a state correctional institution in

Pennsylvania. He has filed an amended complaint and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants Pennsylvania police officers Heffner,

Schriver, and Zozos participated in false arrests, made false statements in police reports, and

committed misconduct at his preliminary hearing. He asks this court to review the merits of his 1

claims and to render an opinion as to whether federal law requires the signature of all juror “to

bind a conviction.” (Am. Compl. at 8.) 

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 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

 Pennsylvania is divided into three federal judicial districts known as the Eastern, 2

Middle, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118.

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 where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same State, (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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, plaintiff complains of events that allegedly occurred in Pennsylvania,

and it appears that all defendants reside in that state. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), plaintiff’s

action should have been filed in a United States District Court in Pennsylvania.2

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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918,

932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). However, the complaint in this case is defective because plaintiff’s attack

on the legality of his confinement should be raised in habeas proceedings rather than in a civil

rights action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973). For this reason, the undersigned

will not transfer the complaint but will recommend that this action be dismissed without

prejudice to the filing of a proper action in the proper district court.

On October 2, 2006 and October 5, 2006, plaintiff filed defective motions for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff failed to have the authorized officer complete the

certificate portion of his application and to provide a certified copy of his inmate trust account

statement. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be

denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s October 2, 2006 and

October 5, 2006 motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are denied.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 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

3

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: April 4, 2007.

DAD:4

nich2004.56venue

Case 2:06-cv-02004-WBS-DAD Document 11 Filed 04/05/07 Page 3 of 3