1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASMEN LAVAR HILL, Case No. 1:25-cv-01360-CDB (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 CORE CIVIC, et al., (Doc. 1)

15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Jasmen Lavar Hill (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges Defendants Core 19 Civic, Centinela State Prison, Lancaster State Prison, and Corcoran State Prison violated his civil 20 rights. See id. 21 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 22 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 23 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 24 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, 25 or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this action, 26 any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with 27 respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 28 In this case, Plaintiff asserts causes of action arising from events that occurred at Centinela 1 State Prison and Lancaster State Prison, both of which are located in counties within the jurisdiction 2 | of the Central District of California. See (Doc. 1 at 3-5). Although Plaintiff names the facility in 3 | which she is currently housed, Cocoran State Prison, as a defendant in this action, none of her 4 | allegations appear to relate to events that occurred at or involved Cocoran State Prison or its staff. 5 | See id. Because Defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct at issue and a substantial part of 6 | the events giving rise to Plaintiffs claims are located in counties within the jurisdiction of the 7 | Central District of California, Plaintiffs action should have been filed in the United States District 8 || Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 9 In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district 10 | to the correct district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465-67 (1962). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the U.S. District 12 | Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 13 | Tr Is SO ORDERED. ar DR Dated: _October 15, 2025 _ 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28