Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01537/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01537-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE FOY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1537 FCD DAD P

vs.

MAROSOIL,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in

San Diego, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to

proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not

rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

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). 

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01537-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/03/08 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

2

In this case, the defendant is located and 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis; and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of California.

DATED: January 3, 2008.

DAD:9

foy1537.21a

Case 2:07-cv-01537-FCD-DAD Document 13 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 2