Lopez Estrada v. Department of Labor and Industries

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTIAN RAUL LOPEZ ESTRADA, No. 2:23-cv-00533-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Defendant.

18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding in pro se, has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2.

20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

27 In this case, the claim arose in during plaintiff’s employment in Kent, Washington, which is in the Western District of Washington. ECF No. 1 at 5, 7. The sole defendant is in Olympia, | Washington. Id. at 2. Therefore, plaintiff's claim should have been filed in the United States || District Court for the Western District of Washington. In the interest of justice, a federal court || may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 4 | 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United || States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

7 || DATED: April 20, 2023 . .

8 Cthten— Lape 9 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]