Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 In his Complaint, Plaintiff states that he is filing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleges that this

Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-12-04426 DMR

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED

According to Plaintiff’s complaint, the incident that forms the basis of his complaint took

place in Modesto, California in Stanislaus County, and Plaintiff lives in Modesto. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1391, a case in which jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity of citizenship1

 may be

filed only in: 

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are

residents of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be

brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any

defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such

action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that the proper venue for

this case is the Eastern District of California because that is where “a substantial part of the events or

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 09/12/12 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). When a plaintiff files his or

her case in the wrong district, the court must either dismiss the case or transfer it to the District

Court in the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Thus, unless Plaintiff can show legal

authority for venue in this district, the court will transfer the case to the Eastern District of

California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, by no later than September 26, 2012,

Plaintiff shall file a statement explaining why this case should not be transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2012

 DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 6 Filed 09/12/12 Page 2 of 2