1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDEN WILLIE ISELI, No. 2:25-cv-1837 CSK P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights 19 action pursuant to

. On October 10, 2025, plaintiff’s complaint concerning an 20 alleged data breach and family visiting issues was dismissed, and plaintiff was granted leave to 21 file an amended complaint. On October 27, 2025, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint 22 claiming that his family visiting allegations were supposed to be sent to the Northern District of 23 California, but would, if possible, like to proceed with the family visiting issues in this court. 24 (ECF No. 11 at 1.) 25 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 26 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 27 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 28 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 1 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 2 || this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 3 || jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

(b). 4 In this case, the claim arose in Del Norte County, which is in the Northern District of 5 || California. Therefore, plaintiff's claim cannot proceed in this court, but should have been filed in 6 || the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 7 || federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 8 |

(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

(D.C. Cir. 1974). Therefore, the 9 || Court will transfer this action to the Northern District of California. 10 On October 27, 2025, plaintiff also filed a document styled, “Motion for Relief,” in which 11 | he allegedly updates information pertaining to his data breach allegations. (ECF No. 12.) Such 12 | motion is moot in light of plaintiffs first amended complaint, and is denied. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiffs “Motion for Relief’ (ECF No. 12) is denied as moot; and 15 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District 16 of California. 17 18 | Dated: October 31, 2025 A aA 19 Cn Ye \L CHI SOO KIM 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 || /1fsel1837.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28