1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 WILLIAM SADOWSKI, No. 2:25-cv-2051 SCR P 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 MARVIN YANG, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 17 § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under

. 18 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 19 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 20 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 21 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 22 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 23 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 24 jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

(b). 25 In this case, the defendants are located and the claim arose in San Diego County, which is 26 in the Southern District of California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the 27 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 28 federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 1 | US.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 3 || States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4 | DATED: August 4, 2025 fonfob 6 SEAN C. RIORDAN 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28