Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01622-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

The filing fee for civil actions is $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914, as 1

amended effective April 8, 2006. Pub. L. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4, February 8,

2006.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, ) 

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

MARY ALLHISER, et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-1622-OWW-SMS

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS (DOC. 5) AS A

STATEMENT OF INTENT TO PAY THE

FILING FEE 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action for damages

and other relief concerning alleged civil rights violations. The

matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

The complaint was filed on November 14, 2006. However,

Plaintiff initially neither paid the $350.00 filing fee nor 1

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court

directed Plaintiff to file a completed application to proceed in

forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff filed

Case 1:06-cv-01622-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/04/07 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

objections, in which he stated that he intended to pay the filing

fee. Because no findings and recommendations or other document

was pending to which objections were appropriately filed, the

Court CONSTRUES Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 5, filed December

15, 2006) as a statement of intent to pay the filing fee.

However, on December 26, 2006, Plaintiff filed an

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Upon further review of the complaint, which is only

partially legible, the Court has determined that Plaintiff is

complaining of malicious prosecution, unlawful search and

seizure, withholding of evidence, and perjury in connection with

the conduct of a district attorney in San Mateo concerning a

prosecution in the San Mateo Superior Court in Redwood City, and

the conduct of an officer or officers in the police department of

Pacifica as well at another location not appearing to be situated

within the Eastern District of California. 

The basis for subject matter jurisdiction in this Court is

unclear. However, with respect to venue, the federal venue

statute generally requires that a civil action, whether based

only on diversity of citizenship or on other grounds, be brought

only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if

all defendants reside in the same state, 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 the

property that is the subject of the action is situated.” 28

U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b). If there is no district in which the

action may otherwise be brought, a civil action may be brought in

a judicial district in which any defendant is otherwise subject

Case 1:06-cv-01622-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/04/07 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

to personal jurisdiction or may be found. § 1391(a),(b).

In this case, none of the defendants appears to reside in 

this district. The claim appears to have arisen in the Northern

District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim should have

been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern

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 this matter is

transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01622-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 01/04/07 Page 3 of 3