Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00155/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00155-0/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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\1 30 09\09cv0155-dsm-no-pay-IFP-venue -1- 09cv0155

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBUR LANN PITTMAN, 

CDCR #F-64353 

Civil No. 09-0155 JM (AJB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

PURSUANT TO 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); and

(2) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION

FOR LACK OF PROPER VENUE

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 

 vs.

J.B. COMPTBER, Jr..

Defendant.

 

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at California Rehabilitation Center located in

Norco, California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United States,

except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if the party is granted leave

Case 3:09-cv-00155-JM-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 3
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

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\1 30 09\09cv0155-dsm-no-pay-IFP-venue -2- 09cv0155

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493

F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action, nor

has submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, this case is subject to immediate dismissal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II. Lack of Proper Venue

An initial review of this action reveals that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue may be

raised by a 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). “A civil action

wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided

by law, 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 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); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “The district court of a district in which

is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interests of

justice, transfer such case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1406(a).

Here, Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California and

he alleges that events which give rise to his claims occurred in Norco, California. (See Compl. at 1-3.)

The only named Defendant is alleged to reside at Norco. (Id. at 2.) Norco is located in Riverside

County. No defendant is alleged to reside in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. 84(d) (“The Southern

District [of California] comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.”). 

Case 3:09-cv-00155-JM-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 3
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

 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he elect to proceed with these claims by filing a

Complaint in the Central District of California, along with a Motion to Proceed IFP, his Complaint will

be subject to the sua sponte screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).

K:\COMMON\CHMB_MIL\__SIGNED ORDERS\1 30 09\09cv0155-dsm-no-pay-IFP-venue -3- 09cv0155

Thus, venue may be proper in the Central District of California, Eastern Division, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1) but not in the Southern District of California.1

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow,

790 F.2d at 1488.

III. Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file

a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a); and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of

proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a).

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

DATED: January 30, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00155-JM-AJB Document 2 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 3