Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02407/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02407-0/pdf.json

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

---

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- 09cv2407 IEG (NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, 

CDCR #F-64353, 

Civil No. 09-2407 IEG (NLS)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 

 vs.

ROBERT HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center

located in Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-02407-IEG-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/30/09 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

27

28

-2- 09cv2407 IEG (NLS)

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if

the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action,

nor has submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, this case is subject to immediate

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II. Lack of Proper Venue

Moreover, an initial review of this action reveals that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue.

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

pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.

1986). “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may,

except as otherwise provided by law, 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); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,

805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying

venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of justice, transfer

such case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1406(a).

Here, Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California,

and he alleges that events which give rise to his claims occurred in Norco, California. (See

Compl. at 1-4.) Moreover, no defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District. See 28

Case 3:09-cv-02407-IEG-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/30/09 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

27

28

-3- 09cv2407 IEG (NLS)

U.S.C. 84(d) (“The Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San

Diego.”). Thus, venue may be proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), but not in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DISMISSES this action sua sponte

without prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack

of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a).

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

DATED: October 30, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:09-cv-02407-IEG-NLS Document 2 Filed 10/30/09 Page 3 of 3