1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JUAN A. GONZALEZ, No. 2:25-cv-2724 SCR P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 DANNY SAMUEL, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Plaintiff is incarcerated in state prison and proceeds pro se in this civil rights action
18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial
21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the
22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action
24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in
25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal
26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
27 In this case, the claim arose in San Luis Obispo County, which is in the Central District of
28 California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court
1 | for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a
2 | complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v.
3 || McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
5 || States District Court for the Central District of California.
6 || DATED: September 26, 2025
SEAN C. RIORDAN
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.