Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02693/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-02693-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vance Evans McGee
Plaintiff
Nevada State Prison or Nevada Department of Prisons
Defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE EVANS McGEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NEVADA STATE PRISON OR

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF

PRISONS, 

Defendant. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

No. C 08-2693 MMC (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 2)

On May 28, 2008, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the abovetitled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges he was unlawfully

imprisoned in a Nevada state prison from August 2006 until March 2007, in violation of his

constitutional rights. Plaintiff further alleges that he sought relief from the Nevada Supreme

Court, but his claims were dismissed as moot because he had been released from prison. By

way of the instant action, plaintiff seeks monetary damages for his false imprisonment and

documents from the Nevada Supreme Court pertaining thereto.

Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a

responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is

proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the

Case 3:08-cv-02693-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/09/08 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

same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is

improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the

interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

It is clear from the complaint that plaintiff’s claims arise out of actions alleged to have

been committed in Nevada by Nevada state employees. As a result, venue is proper in the

District of Nevada, not in the Northern District of California. 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the above-titled action is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. See

28 U.S.C. § 101. In light of the transfer, this Court will defer to the District of Nevada with

respect to plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 2 on this Court’s docket. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 9, 2008 _____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02693-MMC Document 4 Filed 06/09/08 Page 2 of 2