Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04102/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-04102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BURTON,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF KANAB, UTAH, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-08-4102 MMC

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER

VENUE

Before the Court is plaintiff’s complaint, filed August 27, 2008. In his complaint,

plaintiff alleges claims arising from his arrest in Utah and prosecution for crimes in Utah. 

Plaintiff alleges that the district court has diversity jurisdiction over the instant action.

According to the complaint, plaintiff lives in California, while defendants live in Utah.

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is founded only on diversity of citizenship” may

only be brought 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 is subject to

subject jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the

action may otherwise br brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

No defendant resides in the Northern District of California. Further, the events

Case 3:08-cv-04102-MMC Document 5 Filed 09/10/08 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

27

28

2

described in the complaint occurred entirely in Utah. Finally, there is another district in

which the action may be brought, specifically, the District of Utah. Consequently, it appears

venue is improper in this district. See id.

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE, no later

than September 26, 2008, and in writing not to exceed five pages in length, why the instant

action should not be dismissed without prejudice based on improper venue. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1406(a) (providing district court has discretion to dismiss “case laying venue in the wrong

. . . district”); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F. 2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding district court

has authority to raise the issue of defective venue on its own motion).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04102-MMC Document 5 Filed 09/10/08 Page 2 of 2