United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2021

Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers (2B) on 12/13/2019

Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers (2B) on 12/13/2019
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided September 9, 2021
Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers (2B) on 12/13/2019

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL L. DAVIS,

Case No. 21-cv-05654-DMR (PR) Plaintiff, v. ORDER OF TRANSFER

USP VICTORVILLE UNIT OFFICERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Atwater, brings this pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), complaining of deprivations of his civil rights.1 Dkt. 1. He has also filed a completed in forma pauperis application. Dkt. 2.

On July 23, 2021, the Clerk of the Court informed Plaintiff that this action has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff has since consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this action. Dkt. 4.

Plaintiff’s claims seem to stem from incidents that occurred in December 2019 while he was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary, Victorville (“USP Victorville”), which is in San Bernardino County. Thus, the acts complained of occurred in San Bernardino County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern Division of the Central District of California, and it appears that Defendants reside in that district. Venue, therefore, properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is

1 Plaintiff actually filed a form entitled “Complaint Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. TRANSFERRED to the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.2 The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith.

3 All pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer pending in this district.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 || Dated: September 9, 2021

DONNA M. RYU

8 United States Magistrate Judge ll a 12

Zz 18

? Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.