Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00082/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00082-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

t .

FILES

1

«eb~7 mmn 2

3

„ "V" 4 smmz

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 PHILLIP FIGURES, Case No.: 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD

CDCR #19908047, 11 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING

FEES OR APPLICATION TO

PROCEED INFORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff,

12

vs. 13

14

VICTORVILLE USP PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

15

16

17

18 Phillip Figures (“Plaintiff’), who is currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary

located in Adelanto, California, has filed a civil rights action. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiff

claims his constitutional rights were violated while housed at the Victorville U.S.

Penitentiary. See Doc. No. 1 at 1.

Filing Fee

All parties instituting any civil action in a district court must pay a filing fee. 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a plaintiffs failure to prepay the entire

fee only ifthe plaintiffis granted leave to proceed informa pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

19

20

21

22 A.

23

24

25

26

27

l

28 3:17-CV-00082-BEN-MDD

Case 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

any court ofthe United States may authorize the

commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or

proceeding ... without prepayment offees or security therefor,

by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement

of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to

pay such fees or give security therefor.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed IFP. Accordingly,

Plaintiffs action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IfPlaintiff decides to refile his

complaint, he must pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed IFP pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Venue

Additionally, upon initial review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs action appears to

lack 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).

Section 1391(b) ofTitle 28 ofthe U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a

“civil action may be brought in-(l) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if

all defendants are residents ofthe State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial

district in which a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the claim

occurred, or a substantial part ofproperty that is the subject ofthe action is situatedf.]”

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 ifit be in the

interests ofjustice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

7

8

9

10

11 B.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 III

27

2

28 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD

Case 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
Plaintiff alleges that the substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to

his claims occurred at the U.S. Penitentiary located in Adelanto, California, which is

located in San Bernardino County. See Doc. No. 1 at 1-2; 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1))

(including San Bernardino County within the jurisdictional boundaries ofthe Central

District ofCalifornia). Thus, no claim is alleged to have arisen and no Defendant is

alleged to reside in either San Diego or Imperial County. See Doc. No. 1 at 2; 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(d) (“The Southern District comprises the counties ofImperial and San Diego.”).

In short, the facts alleged in the Complaint indicate that venue is proper in the

Central District ofCalifornia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), but not in the Southern

District ofCalifornia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow,

790 F.2d at 1488. As a result, the Court advises Plaintiffthat ifhe decides to refile his

action, his case should be filed in the Central District ofCalifornia.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

The Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 a

DATED: February /^C-2017 17 RTBENlf^

HON

18 United States District Court Judge

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3

28 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD

Case 3:17-cv-00082-BEN-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3