1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH PAUL DEMARCO, 1:25-cv-01051-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 14 CHIARA, et al., EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff, a prisoner, initiated this pro se action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42

accompanied with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2). 19 Because the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred at the Sacramento County main jail, 20 Plaintiff should have filed his complaint in the Sacramento Division of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1391(b); see also Ziegler v. Indian River County,

, 474 (9th Cir. 1995) (reviewing 22 federal court jurisdiction and venue in a § 1983 action). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil 23 action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be 24 transferred to the correct court. The Court finds it in the interests of justice to transfer this case to 25 the Sacramento Division of this Court under

(a) and Local Rule 120(f). 26 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 27 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the Sacramento Division of 28 this Court. 1 2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be 2 | filed at: 3 United States District Court Eastern District of California 4 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 ; Sacramento, CA 95814

6 3. This court defers ruling on plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) 7 || to the transferee court. 8 9 | Dated: _ August 21, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28