Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02057/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02057-0/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

DONALD DOUGLAS BONE, 

Plaintiff, No. 2:08-cv-2057-JFM (PC)

vs.

DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

AND REHABILITATION, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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. 

In addition to challenging a pending involuntary transfer to an out-of-state prison,

plaintiff contends his Eighth Amendment rights are being violated by prison staff at California

Men’s Colony based on their failure to treat an impacted tooth he has suffered since May 2006.

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony.

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

Case 2:08-cv-02057-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/12/08 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

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). 

In this case, one named defendant is located and the claims arose in San Luis

Obispo, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have

been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest

of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint 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 matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central

District of California.

DATED: September 11, 2008.

.001; bone2057.21a

Case 2:08-cv-02057-JFM Document 4 Filed 09/12/08 Page 2 of 2