1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TONNE L. MIESSEK, Case No. 1:25-cv-01424-SAB
11
Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
v.
13
MARINE KINGDOM, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed a civil right complaint, invoking federal
17 question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)1 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other
18 than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any
19 defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a
20 judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
21 occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if
22 there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any
23 judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect
24 to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
25 In this case, the only Defendant discussed in the complaint resides in Marin County
26 California. (ECF No. 1, p. 5.) Moreover, the seemingly central factual allegation is that
27 “[Plaintiff] was wrongfully bartered, traded or sold in 1996 at Marin County.” (Id.) Marin
1 | County is within the Northern District of California. Therefore, Plaintiff's claim should have
2 | been filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of
3 | justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district.
4 | See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
6 | States District Court for the Northern District of California.
7
8 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Be
9 | Dated: _ October 28, 2025 :
STANLEY A. BOONE
10 United States Magistrate Judge
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.