Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01649/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01649-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shirley Poe
Defendant
James Carl Reily
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES CARL REILY,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1649 FCD DAD P

vs.

SHIRLEY POE,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only 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) 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). 

Plaintiff states that he is confined in the State of Nevada pursuant to a criminal

conviction in that state. His civil rights action concerns his discharge from parole on a previous

conviction in California. It appears from documents attached to plaintiff’s complaint that

Case 2:06-cv-01649-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/01/06 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

2

plaintiff was paroled to the San Jose #2 Parole Region and twice absconded parole supervision to

the State of Nevada. The named defendant is Shirley Poe, Regional Parole Administrator for

Region II, the headquarters of which is located in Oakland, California. 

The defendant resides in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of

California, and plaintiff’s claim arose in Santa Clara County, which is also located in the

Northern District of California. Plaintiff’s case should therefore have been filed in the United

States District Court for the Northern 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 case is transferred to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

DATED: July 31, 2006.

DAD:13

reil1649.21

Case 2:06-cv-01649-FCD-DAD Document 4 Filed 08/01/06 Page 2 of 2