1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 E. K. WADE, No. 2:13-cv-0861 MCE CKD PS
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 JEFF MILLER, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The federal venue statute requires that a civil
18 action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district
19 where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in
20 which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
21 substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in
22 which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
23 brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
24 In this case, it appears that a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims
25 occurred in the District of Columbia. Plaintiff repeatedly references actions which occurred in
26 the District of Columbia and the complaint expressly alleges that a substantial part of the events
27 giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the District of Columbia. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should
28 have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the interest of
1
1 justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.
2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
4 States District Court for the District of Columbia.
5 Dated: May 9, 2013
_____________________________________
6
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2