1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC NJOKOM, No. 2:20-cv-02017-TLN-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE

DISTRICT,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, who is proceeding in pro se, has filed an application to proceed in forma 19 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 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the complaint states that both the plaintiff and defendant reside in Los 28 Angeles, California (ECF No. 1 at 12) and all incidents referenced in the complaint appear to 1 | have taken place within Los Angeles County. Both the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles 2 || County are located within the Central District of California, Western Division. Therefore, 3 | plaintiffs claim should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District 4 | of California, Western Division. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 5 || complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 6 || McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the Central 8 | District of California, Western Division. 9 | DATED: October 14, 2020 ~ Llane 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28