Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02278/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02278-0/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

-1- 06cv2278

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID RAYMOND ANDREWS,

CDC #T-67625, Civil No. 06cv2278 BEN (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

LACK OF PROPER VENUE 

vs.

ROBERT COYLE; DENNIS BECK, 

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in Calipatria,

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

Plaintiff claims that a United States District Judge and a United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of California violated his civil rights when they committed “perjury” while

sentencing him after his criminal trial. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. (Id. at

7.)

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to

commence a civil action; instead, he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

I. Lack of Proper Venue

Upon initial review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper

venue. Venue may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a

Case 3:06-cv-02278-BEN-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/26/07 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- 06cv2278

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 claims constitutional violations originally arising out of events which

occurred in Fresno County, California. Moreover, none of the named Defendants are alleged

to reside in either San Diego or Imperial County. (See Compl. at 2.) Therefore, venue more

properly lies in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(b), rather than in

the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the action be dismissed. 

DATED: February 26, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02278-BEN-JMA Document 3 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 2