1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SERGIO ORNEGLAS-MORALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01516-RBL-DWC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NOTED FOR: NOVEMBER 20, 2015

On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff, who is housed at the Northwest Detention Center, 

proceeding pro se, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the above titled action. 

Plaintiff claims that the police department of “Porlartlan [sic] Oregon” did not want to sign his 

supplement. The undersigned recommends that this case be transferred to the District Court of 

Oregon, where venue is proper.

DISCUSSION

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)

Case 3:15-cv-02304-SI Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 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

NOTED FOR: NOVEMBER 20, 2015 - 2

the district in which 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 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 Plaintiff’s Complaint that Plaintiff’s claims arise out of actions alleged to 

have been committed by the Portland Police Department either before or after Plaintiff’s 

incarceration at the Northwest Detention Center. See Dkt.1-1. The Portland Police Department is 

located in Portland, Oregon, which is within the venue of the District of Oregon. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 84(b). Thus, venue is proper in the District of Oregon, not the Western District of 

Washington.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is recommended that in the interest of justice, the above-titled action be

transferred to the United States District Court for District of Oregon and that this case be closed. 

In light of the transfer, the Court should defer to the District of Oregon with respect to Plaintiff’s 

application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and

Recommendation to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections 

will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 1401

Case 3:15-cv-02304-SI Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 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

NOTED FOR: NOVEMBER 20, 2015 - 3

(1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the

matter for consideration on NOVEMBER 20, 2015 as noted in the caption.

Dated this 29th day of October, 2015. A

David W. Christel

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02304-SI Document 5 Filed 10/29/15 Page 3 of 3