(PS) Soehngen v. Woolridge Et Al - Document No. 3
(PS) Soehngen v. Woolridge Et Al - Document No. 3
(PS) Soehngen v. Woolridge Et Al - Document No. 3
10 GEORGE SOEHNGEN,
12 vs.
14 Defendants. ORDER
15 /
16 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Although plaintiff alleges diversity as
17 a basis of jurisdiction, there is no apparent diversity of parties evident in the complaint. Plaintiff
18 also alleges this action is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The federal venue statute requires
19 that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial
20 district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial
21 district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or
22 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in
23 which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
25 In this case, the action involves claims related to property located in Martinez,
26 California, which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-02050-MCE-KJM Document 3 Filed 10/03/2006 Page 2 of 2
1 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the
2 interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the
3 correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.
4 1974).
8
______________________________________
9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
006
13 soehngen.tra
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26