Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00413/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00413-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

RODERICK Q. HICKMAN, et al, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0413 JSW (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison,

located in Soledad, California, within the venue of the United States District Court for

the Northern District of California. He filed this civil rights action in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California on December 12, 2005, complaining

of violations of his civil rights while incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, located in

Ione, California. On December 29, 2005, this matter was transferred to the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 9, 2006, Plaintiff

responded to the order of transfer in the form of a letter to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District, which was forwarded to this Court. In his letter, Plaintiff

points out that the allegations in the complaint refer to Defendants who reside and

conduct that occurred at Mule Creek State Prison in Amador County, within the venue of

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

After this Court’s review of the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff's complaint

was indeed filed in the proper district. When jurisdiction is not founded solely on

diversity, venue is proper in the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the

defendants reside in the same state, (2) the district in which a substantial part of the

Case 3:06-cv-00413-JSW Document 4 Filed 02/16/06 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

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). Where a case is filed in the wrong venue, the district

court has the discretion either to dismiss the case or transfer it to the proper federal court

“in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Venue may be raised by the 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). 

Plaintiff alleges events occurring and Defendants residing in Amador County,

within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. Therefore,

the Court will transfer this action back to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED in the interest of justice, and

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk of the Court shall

transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2006

 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00413-JSW Document 4 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2