Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02738/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02738-0/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 06cv2738

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN M. REMERY,

Inmate No. 0610340979,

Civil No. 06-2738 BEN (JMA)

Plaintiff,

ORDER TRANSFERRING CIVIL

ACTION FOR LACK OF PROPER

VENUE TO THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

EASTERN DIVISION, 

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

 vs.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho

Cucamongo, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims

that his constitutional rights were violated when he was incarcerated at the California Youth

Authority in Chino, California. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as

compensatory and punitive damages. 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 civil filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); nor

has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

////

////

Case 3:06-cv-02738-BEN-WMC Document 2 Filed 01/22/07 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 06cv2738

I. Lack of Proper Venue

Upon initial review of the Complaint, 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). “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of

citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, 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); 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 in or division in which it could have

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Here, Plaintiff claims constitutional violations originally arising out of events which

occurred in San Bernardino County, not San Diego or Imperial Counties. Moreover, none of the

named Defendants are alleged to reside in San Diego or Imperial Counties. Therefore, venue

is proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1),

not in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transfer this

case for lack of proper venue, in the interests of justice and for the convenience of all parties,

to the docket of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern

Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

DATED: January 22, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02738-BEN-WMC Document 2 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2