Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01463/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01463-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARVELLOUS GREENE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1463 LKK KJM P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. In light of 1996

amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on plaintiff's request to proceed in

forma pauperis. 

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 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). 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01463-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 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

1

 It appears defendant Peters, an appeals examiner, may reside within this district. 

However, plaintiff does not state a valid claim for relief against Peters as plaintiff has no

constitutional right to a prison grievance procedure. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th

Cir. 2003), cert. denied sub nom. McEnroe v. Ramirez, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2388 (2004). 

2

In this case, the defendants are located in, and plaintiff’s claims arose in Los

Angeles,1 which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central

District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States

District Court for the Central 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 Central District of California.

DATED: May 3, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

gree1463.21.a

Case 2:04-cv-01463-LKK -KJM Document 7 Filed 05/04/05 Page 2 of 2