Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00564/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00564-1/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

VERNON D. CARROLL,

Plaintiff, CV F 08 0564 AWI WMW PC 

vs. TRANSFER ORDER 

GOV. SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation at CSP Corcoran, brings this action challenging the basis of his criminal

conviction in Los Angeles County.

Though filed on a form for a civil rights claim pursuant to section 1983, Plaintiff states

the following as his claim: “The main issue concerning this allege case is that the Head of the

Superior Court Room here at the City of Lancaster within each defendant(s) as written is and still

are fully aware of a wrongful judgment within his allege criminal convictions. . . .” Plaintiff goes

on to generally allege court error. Among the named defendants are Judge Michael Luros,

Deputy District Attorney Brooks and attorney Aurum Harris, a public defender.

Case 1:08-cv-00564-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 06/24/08 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

2

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 the property that is the

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judical 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). 

In this case, Plaintiff names defendants situated in Los Angeles County, and appears to

challenge the basis of a conviction entered in Los Angeles County. Therefore, the complaint

should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

In the interest of justice, a court may transfer a case 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

j14hj0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00564-AWI-WMW Document 10 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 2