Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00574/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris W. Kibunguchy
Petitioner
Tylenol Corporation
Respondent

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

CHRIS W. KIBUNGUCHY,

Petitioner,

v.

TYLENOL CORPORATION,

Respondent.

No. 2:20-cv-0574 KJN

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not, however, filed an in forma pauperis affidavit or paid the 

required filing fee ($5.00). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a). 

Petitioner is incarcerated at Atascadero State Hospital in Atascadero, California. In his 

only claim for relief, petitioner alleges that Dr. McGee is forcing petitioner to take Zyprexa. 

Elsewhere in the petition, petitioner alleges that he complained to the Department of Health and 

Human Services regarding the side effects of his medication.

The purpose of a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is to challenge the 

validity of a conviction or sentence. The purpose of a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 is to challenge conditions of confinement. Because petitioner appears to challenge 

conditions of confinement, the undersigned construes this action as a civil rights action pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Case 2:20-cv-00574-KJN Document 3 Filed 03/20/20 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

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). 

In this case, it appears that petitioner’s claims arose in Atascadero, California, which is in 

San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County is in the Central District of California. 

Therefore, petitioner’s claims should have been filed in the United States District Court for the 

Central 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 this matter is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California.

Dated: March 20, 2020

Kibu0574.101a

Case 2:20-cv-00574-KJN Document 3 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 2