Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02953/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02953-0/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID SABINO QUAIR, II, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-0834-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. He generally alleges that the transgendered and homosexual inmates at San 

Quentin State Prison (Marin County) and the California Institute for Men (San Bernardino 

County) are subject to daily psychological harm by correctional officers.1

 ECF No. 1 at 3. 

However, the only allegation with any sort of specificity is an allegation that plaintiff is “subject 

to identity theft by Carolyn Fuller of CSP-SQ.” Id. 

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 

district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 

district is located, (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 

 1

 Plaintiff states in her application to proceed in forma pauperis that she identifies as a 

female transsexual. ECF No. 2. 

Case 3:19-cv-02953-JD Document 6 Filed 05/16/19 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 

is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 

this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

 In this case, any potential claims arose in Marin and/or San Bernardino Counties. Thus, 

venue properly lies in both the Northern and Central Districts of California. Given that the only 

allegation with any sort of specificity concerns a claim arising at San Quentin (“CSP-SQ”), the 

court finds that the interests of justice will be better served by transferring this case to the 

Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Northern 

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Dated: May 15, 2019. 

Case 3:19-cv-02953-JD Document 6 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 2