Opinion
1:23-cv-01554-SAB (PC)
03-14-2024
NARCISO RAMIREZ, Plaintiff, v. C. PFEIFFER, et al. Defendants.
ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the original complaint in this action on November 3, 2023, and prior to screening of the complaint, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) on November 17, 2023. (ECF No. 10.) In the first amended complaint, Plaintiff named prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison, as Defendants. (Id. at 2.)
On December 26, 2023, Plaintiff submitted another amended complaint which was lodged by the Court. (ECF No. 11.) On January 3, 2024, the Court returned the lodged complaint to Plaintiff, noting “Plaintiff has exercised his right to amend the complaint by filing a first amended complaint on November 17, 2023, which will be screened in due course. In addition, based on a cursory review of the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff has added new Defendants and different factual allegations than those presented in the first amended complaint. Further, the alleged events in the proposed amended complaint took place at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) which is located in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, venue is improper in th[at] Court.” (ECF No. 12 at 1-2.)
On January 8, 2024, the Court screened the first amended complaint, found no cognizable claims, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 11, 2024. (ECF No. 25.)
Based on a review of Plaintiff's second amended complaint, this district is no longer the proper venue. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff names prison officials at Salinas Valley State Prison as the Defendants and acknowledges the incident at issue took place at Salinas Valley State Prison. (ECF No. 25, at 1-2.) Thus, under the second amended complaint, venue properly lies in United Stated 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).
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This instant action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; and
2. All future filings shall refer to the new Northern District case number assigned and shall be filed at:
Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112 San Jose, CA 95113
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.