Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02403/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02403-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Reginald Cooks
Plaintiff
Craig J. Mitchell
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES REGINALD COOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CRAIG J. MITCHELL,

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-2403-MCE-EFB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a document titled “Compelling 

Discovery ‘Order’ for Payment Default Judgment.” See ECF No. 1.

1

 The filing alleges a 

defendant in Los Angeles refused to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. 

On November 24, 2015, the magistrate judge determined that the complaint arose out of 

events that occurred in Los Angeles County and transferred the case to the Western Division of

the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a). ECF No. 4. Plaintiff responded with a filing that, liberally construed, seeks 

reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order and argues that venue is proper in this Court

because Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of California. ECF No. 8.

///

 1 Although not captioned as such, Plaintiff indicated that this filing was intended to serve 

as a “new complaint.” ECF No. 1 at 3. 

Case 2:15-cv-02403-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 12/11/15 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

Local Rule 303(f) provides that orders of magistrate judges shall be upheld unless “clearly 

erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the entire file, the Court finds that the magistrate 

judge’s ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action may be brought 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 action, 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). Plaintiff’s objection to the transfer of venue is based upon his residency in 

this District. Under § 1391(b), that is not a basis for finding proper venue.

 Accordingly, the order of the magistrate judge filed November 24, 2015 (ECF No. 4) is 

AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-02403-MCE-EFB Document 9 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2