Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01839-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Smith
Plaintiff
Jack Vognsen
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0843 DAD P

vs.

JACK VOGNSEN,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, who is civilly committed under California law, proceeding pro se, has

filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with a request to proceed in

forma pauperis. In light of 1996 amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, this court will not rule on

plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, 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). 

/////

Case 3:10-cv-01839-SI Document 6 Filed 04/23/10 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

2

In this case, the defendant(s) are located and the claim arose in San Francisco,

which is located in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have

been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the

interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the

correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.

1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis; and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California.

DATED: April 22, 2010.

DAD:sj:kly

smit0843.21a

Case 3:10-cv-01839-SI Document 6 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 2