1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC ZARAGOZA RIOS, Case No. 2:21-cv-02177-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13 v.

14 CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF DEPT., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, a civil detainee proceeding without counsel, has filed a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought only in “(1) a judicial 20 district where any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 21 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 22 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the 23 action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as 24 provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 25 personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, plaintiff’s claims arose in Contra Costa County, which is in the Northern 27 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Thus, this action should have been filed in the 28 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a 1 | federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 2 1 US.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 4 | District Court for the Northern District of California. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED.

’ Dated: _ November 30, 2021 \ □□ 8 awe D. PE i ERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28