Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01617/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01617-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cal-Trans
Defendant
Victor Tagle
Plaintiff

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VICTOR TAGLE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAL-TRANS, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-02321 AC PC 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by 

Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 The allegations found in plaintiff’s complaint concern claims of wrongful termination and 

failure to compensate. The complaint alleges plaintiff is currently incarcerated at High Desert 

State Prison in Nevada, that defendant Cal-Trans is located in Sacramento, California, and the 

alleged wrongful conduct of defendant occurred in Bishop and Fresno, California. Plaintiff 

alleges that prior to his incarceration he was employed by defendant and was wrongfully 

terminated without compensation for past due wages. As a result of the termination, plaintiff 

alleges he was stranded in Bishop. Plaintiff also alleges he participated in an arbitration hearing 

in Fresno and was awarded past due wages, but has not received payment from defendant. 

 The federal venue statute requires that all civil actions filed in any district court be 

Case 1:14-cv-01617---BAM Document 4 Filed 10/16/14 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

brought 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) 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). 

 Plaintiff’s pleading makes clear that the Eastern District of California Sacramento 

Division is not the proper venue in which to bring this case. See L.R. 120(d) (“All civil and 

criminal actions and proceedings of every nature and kind cognizable in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California arising in,” inter alia, Fresno and Inyo county “shall 

be commenced in the United States District Court sitting in Fresno, California.”). Here, the 

alleged wrongful conduct took place in Bishop and Fresno, California, which are located in the 

Eastern District of California Fresno Division. “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 interest of 

justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a). Considering the allegations in the pleading, this matter should have been 

brought in the district where the allegations supporting the cause of action occurred, not in the 

Eastern District of California Sacramento Division. In the interest of justice, this action will be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Fresno 

Division for further proceedings, including a ruling on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma 

pauperis and the screening of plaintiff’s complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California Fresno Division. 

DATED: October 15, 2014 

Case 1:14-cv-01617---BAM Document 4 Filed 10/16/14 Page 2 of 2