1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH L. ARANT, No. 2:25-cv-0416 SCR P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 18 § 1983. On January 30, 2025, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of his civil rights by 19 defendants employed at California State Prison, Los Angeles County. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff 20 has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

. (ECF 21 No. 2.) 22 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 23 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 24 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 25 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 26 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 27 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 28 jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

(b). ] In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in Los Angeles County, which 2 || 1s in the Central District of California. Therefore, plaintiff's complaint should have been filed in 3 || the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a 4 || federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 5 |

(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 7 || States District Court for the Central District of California. 8 | DATED: February 6, 2025 mk 10 SEAN C. RIORDAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28