1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10

11 AIMEE O’NEIL, Case No.: 2:20-cv-01124-JAD-NJK 12 Plaintiff(s), TRANSFER ORDER 13 v.

14 STATE OF FLORIDA, 15 Defendant(s). 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and 17 proposed complaint. Docket Nos. 1, 1-1. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be 18 brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same 19 state where the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 20 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of 21 the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal 22 jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may 23 otherwise be brought.

(b). If a case has been filed in the wrong district, the 24 district court in which the case has been incorrectly filed has the discretion to transfer such case to 25 any district in which it could have been brought.

(a); see also Parks v. Johnson, 26 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis. 16284, *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2016). 27 Here, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of alleged events taking place in Pasco County, Florida. 28 See Docket No. 1-1 at 4. Plaintiff alleges that certain of her constitutional rights were violated by 1} the State of Florida in a child custody hearing. See

. Plaintiff has not alleged any 2|| connection of any kind between her claims and this District. None of the above venue provisions 3] renders this District a proper venue for this case. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of Court transfer this matter to the 5|| Middle District of Florida (Tampa division) and that this case be closed.! 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: June 24, 2020 Zo 8 ZEN, Zo — ay Nancy J. Koppes \ 9 United a N me Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 An order transferring venue does not address the merits of the case and, therefore, is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge’s authority under

(b)(1)(A). See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners,

(S.D. Cal. 2013) (collecting cases); see also Ross v. Lane Community College,

, *4 (D. Nev. July 31, 2014) (holding that a transfer under

(a) is a non-dispositive matter).