Sadowski v. Yang

Sadowski · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · August 4, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-2051 SCR P

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California determined that venue was improper because the defendants and events underlying the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim were located in San Diego County. The court ordered the action transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Writing for the Court
Sean C. Riordan
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decision date
August 4, 2025
Docket number
2:25-cv-2051 SCR P
Procedural posture
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The court determined that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California and ordered transfer to the Southern District of California.
Precedential value
Unknown; district court order with no reported citation
Parties
William Sadowski v. Marvin Yang, et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

venuecivil proceduresection 1983prisoners rights

Practice areas

civil procedureprisoner civil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether venue was proper in the Eastern District of California or should be transferred to the Southern District of California.
  2. Whether the action should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because it was filed in the wrong federal district.

Holdings

  1. Venue was improper in the Eastern District of California because the defendants were located and the claim arose in San Diego County, which is within the Southern District of California.
  2. A federal court may transfer an action filed in the wrong district to the proper district in the interest of justice, and this action should be transferred to the Southern District of California.

Key quotations

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.” (1)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. (1)

Factual background

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The opinion states that the defendants were located in San Diego County and that the claim arose there, placing the relevant conduct in the Southern District of California.

Procedural history

Sadowski filed a § 1983 action in the Eastern District of California. The court found that the defendants and the events underlying the claim were located in San Diego County, making the Southern District of California the proper venue, and transferred the matter in the interest of justice.

Remand instructions

Transfer the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…