Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01164/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01164-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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

PEDRO CAMACHO-CORONA, Civil No. 12-CV-1164-MMA(WMC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

IMPROPER VENUE

 vs.

DOUGLAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Facility Victorville 

located in Adelanto, California, and proceeding pro se, filed this action as a “Motion Pursuant

to FRAP 21(a), 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a)(d), Rule 32(a)(1), Writ of Mandamus.” However, his

allegations appear to make out claims for civil rights violations based on the conditions of his

confinement, namely violations of the Eighth Amendment for failure to provide proper medical

care. See Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff now moves for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis.

I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

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 plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee

only if the plaintiff is granted leave to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez

v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

12CV1164

Case 3:12-cv-01164-MMA-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/12/12 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

According to Plaintiff’s declaration, he is currently unemployed, with no significant

sources of income or assets. [Doc. No. 3.] The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s affidavit of assets

and finds it is sufficient to show that he is unable to pay the fees or post securities required to

maintain this action. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

II. Initial Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

When a court authorizes the commencement of an action by granting IFP status, the court

is also obligated to dismiss the case “at any time” upon making a determination that the action

“fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (“It is also clear that section 1915(e) not

only permits but requires a district to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state

a claim.” (emphasis added)); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)

(finding that the provisions of § 1915(e)(2)(B) “are not limited to prisoners”). A district court

may also raise the issue of defective venue sua sponte and dismiss an action. See Costlow v.

Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in (1) a district where any defendant resides;

(2) a district in which a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred”; 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. Similarly, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which

governs suits against officers or employees of the United States, venue is proper in “any judicial

district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.”

The Court’s initial review of the Complaint reveals that the Southern District of

California is not the proper venue to bring this action. All of the parties Plaintiff has sued are

located in Nebraska and Victorville, California, and the Complaint never mentions any person

or other legal entity, location, or event in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b), (e).

12CV1164

Case 3:12-cv-01164-MMA-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/12/12 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

III. Conclusion and Order

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

without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 1406. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed on this matter, he may file

suit in the proper venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 12, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-01164-MMA-WMC Document 4 Filed 06/12/12 Page 3 of 3