Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02057/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02057-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALE E. COPES,

CDCR #T-24833, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOSIE CASTELO, Warden,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS

ORDER:

1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

[ECF No. 2] 

AND 

2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 

LACK OF PROPER VENUE 

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

DONALE E. COPES (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at California Men’s 

Colony (“CMC”), in San Luis Obispo, California and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 

rights complaint pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Compl., ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff seeks money damages against CMC’s Warden, Josie Castelo, based on 

claims that his sentence in San Joaquin County Superior Court Criminal Case No. 

SF083451A violates “double jeopardy.” Id. at 3-4, 7-10. 

///

Case 3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS

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

Plaintiff did not prepay the $400 civil and administrative filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (ECF No. 2).

I. Venue

Upon initial review, the Court finds 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). 

Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a 

“civil action may be brought in–(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if 

all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (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[.]” 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 or division in which it could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

On the one hand, Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations arising out of events or 

omissions occurring in 2002 when he claims to have been convicted and sentenced in San 

Joaquin County Superior Court Criminal Case No. SF083451A, in violation of double 

jeopardy. See ECF No. 1 at 9. San Joaquin County Superior Court is located in San 

Joaquin County. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b) (“The Eastern District [of California] comprises 

the counties of ..., San Joaquin, ....”). On the other hand, the only named Defendant is the 

Warden of CMC, which is located in the County of San Luis Obispo, and where Plaintiff 

is currently incarcerated. Id. at 1; see 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2) (“The Western Division [of the 

Central District of California] comprises the counties of Los Angeles, San Luis Obispo, 

Santa Barbara, and Ventura.”).

Case 3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS

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

No event or omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim is alleged to have occurred in 

either San Diego or Imperial County, and no Defendant is alleged to reside here. See 28 

U.S.C. § 84(d) (“The Southern District of California comprises the counties of Imperial 

and San Diego.”).

Therefore, venue appears potentially proper in either the Central District of 

California, Western Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2), or the Eastern District of 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 

(ECF No. 2) without prejudice, DISMISSES this civil action without prejudice for lack 

of proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court 

to close the file.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2018

 

1 The Court declines to exercise its discretion to transfer the case to either the Central or Eastern 

Districts of California because it does not appear such a transfer would be in the interest of justice. See

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A court should examine a plaintiff’s claim to determine whether the interests of 

justice require transfer instead of dismissal. See, e.g., King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir. 

1992). Here, Plaintiff seeks money damages from CMC’s Warden pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based 

on the alleged unconstitutionality of a 2002 San Joaquin County criminal conviction and sentence; but 

he critically fails to allege that conviction has already been invalidated. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-4, 

7-10; Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“[W]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 

suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply 

the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the 

plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”); see also Riggs 

v. Sandie, 715 F. App’x 765, 766 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming dismissal of § 1983 damages suit based on 

double jeopardy claims that “would necessarily imply the invalidity of ... sentence” pursuant to Heck).

Case 3:18-cv-02057-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 09/11/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3