1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BENJAMIN C. SANCHEZ, Case No. 25-cv-01217-SVK

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER OF TRANSFER

9 v.

10 CDCR CALIFORNIA, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Self-represented Plaintiff seeks redress for events that occurred in a California Department 13 of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the “CDCR”) facility in San Luis Obispo County. He sues the 14 CDCR and two individual defendants who appear to be either employees of or persons 15 incarcerated at the CDCR facility. The CDCR is headquartered in Sacramento, which is located in 16 the Eastern District of California (see Gardea v. California, No. 24-cv-03383-AC, 2024 WL 17 5307138, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2024)), and the individual defendants appear to reside in San 18 Luis Obispo County, which is located in the Central District of California (see 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)). 19 Thus, this action involves events that occurred and defendants who reside outside this 20 district. Yet venue is generally proper in the district where: (1) “any defendant resides, if all 21 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located”; (2) “a substantial part of the 22 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 23 subject of the action is situated”; or (3) “if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be 24 brought . . .[,] any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 25 1391(b). This district is consequently not the proper venue for this action because all of the events 26 giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim arose in the Central District, and the defendants are located in the 27 Eastern District and Central District. 1 so has not run, the Court may raise a venue issue sua sponte. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 2 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986); see, e.g., Oliver v. Peluso, No. 20-cv-01734-DMR, 2020 WL 3 6136745, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2020). If an action is commenced in the wrong venue, the 4 || Court may exercise its discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it to the proper federal court 5 || “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th 6 || Cir. 1992). Here, the proper venue is the United States District Court for the Central District of 7 || California because the events giving rise to Plaintiff's claim arose in the Central District, the 8 individual defendants reside in the Central District and the CDCR (which 1s headquartered in the 9 || Eastern District) appears to be immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United 10 States Constitution. 11 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to transfer this action 12 || to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 13 SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: February 10, 2025 2 15 16 Sessoms Yl

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

17 United States Magistrate Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28