Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00048/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States
Defendant
Timothy Doyle Young
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-0048 TEH (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the United States

Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, has filed a pro se civil rights action alleging

violations of his federal statutory and constitutional rights in the Tenth Circuit’s

resolution of a complaint to the Judicial Council. The events or omissions giving rise to

the claims occurred, and the Defendant named reside within the venue of the District of

Colorado. See 28 U.S.C. § 85. Venue therefore properly lies in the District of

Colorado. See id. § 1391(b).

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the

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

case is filed in the wrong venue, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the

Case 3:08-cv-00048-TEH Document 4 Filed 01/18/08 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

case or transfer it to the proper federal court “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. §

1406(a). Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet

filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks,

790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). While Plaintiff requests to show cause why the

case should not be transferred to the Tenth Circuit, he has failed to allege any basis for

jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for

the District of Colorado. The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: 01/17/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00048-TEH Document 4 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2