Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00575/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00575-0/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

FREDERICK DOUGLAS BENNETT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-0836 LEW DAD P

vs.

WARDEN WINETT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner confined at California Correctional Institution in

Tehachapi, California, 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 1:08-cv-00575-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 04/25/08 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

 Although plaintiff also lists “The Director of Corrections” as a defendant, it is clear that 1

plaintiff is suing the CDC Director solely in a respondeat superior capacity. In addition, to the

extent that plaintiff alleges he is seeking enforcement of an injunction entered in Case No. 01-

0617 GEB PAN, plaintiff is in error. In that case, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for

his contumacious failure to comply with court orders and the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

In this case, plaintiff complains of conditions of confinement at California

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the

Fresno Division of this court. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint 1

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:

1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis; and

2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

3. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: April 25, 2008.

DAD:9

benn0836.21

Case 1:08-cv-00575-LJO-WMW Document 4 Filed 04/25/08 Page 2 of 2