Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02834/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02834-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WARDEN DERRAL G. ADAMS;

ASSOCIATE WARDEN B. ESPINOSA;

CAPTAIN R.M. COMFORT; CAPTAIN

J.R. WESPHAL; SERGEANT R.P.

HILL; SERGEANT TILSTON;

DEPUTY WARDEN J. WARD, 

Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2834 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 3

On May 31, 2007, plaintiff, a prisoner at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in

Susanville, California, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled complaint pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, all employees of California State Prison,

Corcoran (“CSP-Corcoran”) in Corcoran, California, violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights

while plaintiff was housed at CSP-Corcoran. 

Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a

responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is

proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the

Case 3:07-cv-02834-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/15/07 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

1

The Court further notes that HDSP, where plaintiff is currently housed, is located in

Lassen County, which likewise is within the venue of the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(b). 

2

same state; (2) the 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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district

in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is

improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the

interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

It is clear from the complaint and the attachments thereto that plaintiff’s claims arise

out of actions alleged to have been committed at CSP-Corcoran by defendants located at

CSP-Corcoran. CSP-Corcoran is located in Kings County, California, which is within the

venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).1

 As a result, venue is

proper in the Eastern District of California, not in the Northern District. 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the above-titled action is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In

light of the transfer, this Court will defer to the Eastern District with respect to plaintiff’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 3 on this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2007 _____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02834-MMC Document 5 Filed 06/15/07 Page 2 of 2