1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALFONSO MOUZON, Case No.: 1:24-cv-01170-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 13 v. CALIFORNIA

14 ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., (Doc. 13)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Alfonso Mouzon is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 18

. 19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 Plaintiff filed his complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 21 California on March 28, 2024. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge Donna 22 M. Ryu issued an Order of Transfer, finding the “acts complained of in this complaint occurred at 23 the Fresno County Jail” and determined venue properly lies in this district. (Doc. 7.) Judge Ryu 24 ordered the matter transferred to this Court. (Id.) 25 This Court issued its First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Case on October 26 2, 2024 (Doc. 9) and its Order to Submit a Non-Prisoner Application to Proceed In Forma 27 Pauperis or Pay the $405 Filing Fee Within (30) Thirty Days on October 15, 2024 (Doc. 10). 1 On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (Doc. 12) and a document 2 titled “Plaintiff’s Request For The Court To Vacate It’s [sic] Order” (Doc. 13), referring to Judge 3 Ryu’s order transferring the action from the Northern District to this Court. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Plaintiff’s Request 6 Plaintiff’s states he “made a typing error in paragraph 4 of the [original] complaint by 7 typing Fresno instead of Alameda.” (Doc. 13 at 1.) Plaintiff states a review of his original 8 complaint reveals that “at paragraph 2 of the complaint it states the Defendant is Alameda 9 County” and both causes of action identify “Defendant Alameda County.” (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff 10 states he has “fixed the error in paragraph 4 to now [read he] arrived at the Alameda County jail,” 11 as reflected in his first amended complaint. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff asks this Court “to vacate its order 12 transferring the case to the Eastern District in Fresno, and the real Defendant is Alameda 13 County.” (Id.) 14 The Court notes the caption of Plaintiff’s request states the “United States District Court 15 Northern District of California.” (Doc. 13 at 1, 7-8.) The document bears this Court’s case 16 number, and it does not appear that Plaintiff served the Northern District with this request. This 17 Court will not vacate an order issued by a judge in another district court, and construes Plaintiff’s 18 request or motion to seek a transfer of this action back to the Northern District of California. 19 Analysis 20 A review of the first amended complaint confirms that Plaintiff’s claims arise from 21 incidents occurring at the Alameda County Jail. (See Doc. 12 at 4 [“arrived at the Alameda 22 County jail to be booked in as a civil detainee on or about July 2021”] & 6-7.) The first amended 23 complaint also names “Alameda County” as the sole defendant in the action. (Id. at 4.) 24 If a court determines the appropriate venue for a case lies in another division or district, 25 the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 26 division in which it could have been brought.”

(a). The general federal venue 27 statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any 1 judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 2 occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there 3 is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial 4 district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such 5 action.”

(b). 6 Here, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names only “Alameda County” as defendant, 7 and alleges constitutional violations in Alameda County, which is located in the United States 8 District Court for the Northern District of California. Venue is no longer proper in this district in 9 light of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint. 10 In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong 11 district to the correct district. See

(a); see also Fayed v. Allison, No. 2:21-cv- 12 02041 DB P,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) (transferring action to Northern 13 District following the filing of a third amended complaint indicating the events giving rise to the 14 claim occurred at San Quentin State Prison and naming only defendants located in that district). 15 Therefore, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern 16 District of California. 17 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 19 1. Plaintiff’s request filed November 4, 2024 (Doc. 13), construed to be a motion for 20 transfer, is GRANTED; 21 2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District 22 of California; and 23 3. This Court has not ruled on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25

26 Dated: November 15, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27