Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California orders the transfer of a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action to the Northern District of California. The court concludes that the defendant and the events underlying the claim are located in Alameda County and that transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether venue was proper in the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
- Whether the action should be transferred to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because it was filed in the wrong district.
Holdings
- Venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the defendant was located and the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of California.
- When a civil action is filed in the wrong federal district, the court may transfer it to the proper district in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Key quotations
“In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.” (at 1)
Factual background
Jonathan Coffer, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, filed a civil-rights action against Sierra Promise Dugan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendant was located in Alameda County, and the claim arose there; Alameda County is within the Northern District of California. Plaintiff had not paid the filing fee or filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Procedural history
Plaintiff commenced this § 1983 action in the Eastern District of California. Because the defendant was located and the claim arose in Alameda County, the court found that the action should have been filed in the Northern District of California and transferred the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Remand instructions
The matter was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; no remand was ordered.