Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00015/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00015-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Trotter
Plaintiff
Linda Whittlesey
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH TROTTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LINDA WHITTLESEY,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-15-JAM-KJN PS

ORDER

Plaintiff Joseph Trotter, who proceeds in this action without counsel,1has requested leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.) After carefully 

reviewing plaintiff’s complaint, the court concludes that the action should be transferred to the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

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 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 

 

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:17-cv-00015-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/05/17 Page 1 of 3
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

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, plaintiff alleges that, from about April 2015 to August 2016, he was subjected 

to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other violations by defendant Linda Whittlesey, the 

property owner at plaintiff’s previous home in Lancaster, California. Defendant is alleged to 

reside in Arcadia, California, and it appears that plaintiff now lives in Sacramento, California. 

(See generally ECF No. 1.) 

In light of the foregoing, this district is not the proper venue for this action. For purposes 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), defendant does not reside in this district, because Arcadia, California 

is located in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Additionally, for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), this district is not a district in which a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. As plaintiff himself alleges, all violations 

at issue took place in Lancaster, California, which is also located in Los Angeles County, in the 

Central District of California. Even though plaintiff presently resides in Sacramento County, a 

plaintiff’s county of residence is not relevant in determining proper venue. Furthermore, 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3) does not apply in this case, because there is another district in which this 

action may be brought—the Central District of California.

“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). Here, filing in this district 

appears to have been an inadvertent error by a pro se plaintiff unfamiliar with the procedural rules 

of venue. As such, the court finds that transfer in lieu of dismissal is appropriate.

Therefore, the court transfers this action to the Central District of California. In light of 

the transfer, the court declines to rule on plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 

which will be resolved by the Central District of California. In transferring this action, this court 

also expresses no opinion regarding the merits of plaintiff’s claims. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The action, including plaintiff’s pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of 

Case 2:17-cv-00015-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 3
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

3

California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 5, 2017

 

2

Plaintiff is instructed to direct any filings or inquiries related to this case to the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California. Further information regarding that court’s 

Local Rules and procedures can be obtained on the court’s website at 

https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/ or by telephone at (213) 894-1565. Plaintiff is cautioned that 

further filings in the Eastern District of California related to this case will be disregarded. 

Case 2:17-cv-00015-JAM-KJN Document 3 Filed 01/05/17 Page 3 of 3