Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02631/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02631-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00623-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER TRANSFERING CASE TO THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Manuel Mendez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 29, 2016, against Santa Clara County 

Superior Court, Chief Executive Officer David H. Yamasaki, and Legal Process Clerk P. 

Kotsubo alleging violations of his civil rights for the failure to provide him with documents 

which he contends are necessary to file a writ of habeas corpus. 

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 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The 

Case 4:16-cv-02631-HSG Document 3 Filed 05/05/16 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

Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that venue does not lie in this district as none 

of the venue requirements of section 1391 are met. The incidents alleged in the complaint took 

place in Santa Rosa County which is part of the Northern District of California. Venue in this 

action appropriately lies within the Northern District of California.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case has been filed in the wrong district, the 

“district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 

division in which it could have been brought.” Additionally Local Rule 120(f), provides that a 

civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion, 

be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Northern 

District of California. This court will not rule on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California; and

2. This court has not ruled on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-02631-HSG Document 3 Filed 05/05/16 Page 2 of 2