(PC) Pittman v. Hajemann et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WILBUR LANN PITTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
M. HAJEMANN, et al.,
Defendant.
1:25-cv-02014 SAB (PC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where 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 the 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 section, 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 this case, none of the defendants reside in this district. The claim arose in San Diego
County, which is in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have
Case 1:25-cv-02014-SAB Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 2
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 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).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 5, 2026
STANLEY A. BOONE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02014-SAB Document 3 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 2