Mousa v. Criminal Intelligence Bureau

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

Mousa v. Criminal Intelligence Bureau

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01618-LJO-SKO

14 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 15 v.

16 CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, et 17 al., 18 Defendants. 19 _____________________________________/

20 On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff Mohamed Saladdin Mousa, a state prisoner proceeding pro 21 se, filed a complaint against Defendants “Criminal Intelligence Bearu [sic],” Los Angeles Sheriff 22 Department, and Captain Anselmo Gonzalez, along with an application to proceed in forma 23 pauperis. (Docs. 1 & 2.) The complaint purports to allege claims pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983

for 24 violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, apparently arising from his work as an alleged “custody 25 informant” while imprisoned at the Los Angeles County Jail. (See Doc. 1.) 26 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 27 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 28 1 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a 2 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of 3 property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action 4 may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 5 subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

28 U.S.C. § 1391

(b). 6 While Plaintiff is currently housed at a correctional institution within this judicial district,1 7 none of the Defendants reside in this district.2 In addition, the claim arose at the Los Angeles County 8 Jail (see Doc. 1 at 1), which is in the Western Division of the Central District of California. 9 Therefore, Plaintiff’s suit should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central 10 District of California, Western Division. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 11 complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See

28 U.S.C. § 1406

(a); Abrams Shell 12 v. Shell Oil Co.,

165 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1103

(C.D. Cal. 2001). 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 14 District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

Sheila K. Oberto 17 Dated: November 15, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff alleges he is currently an inmate at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. (See 27 Doc. 1 at 1.) 2 Defendants “Criminal Intelligence Bearu [sic]” and Gonzalez are located in Whittier, California (in Los Angeles 28 County), and Defendant Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department is located in Los Angeles. (See Doc. 1 at 2.)

Reference

Status
Unknown