Macomber

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AROGANT HOLLYWOOD, Case No. 2:24-cv-03351-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 14 JEFFREY A. MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Arogant Hollywood is proceeding in this action pro se and has paid the 18 filing fee.1 For the reasons outlined below, the Court will transfer this action to the United 19 States District Court for the Central District of California because venue is not proper in 20 this district. 21 I. VENUE 22 The general federal venue statute pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that a 23 civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all 24 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district

25 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). An order addressing venue transfer does not address the merits of the case and is a non-dispositive matter that…