Rye

(PS) Gigena v. Rye

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 1, 20232:23-cv-01662California904 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GABRIEL GIGENA, No. 2:23-cv-01662-DJC-CKD PS Plaintiff, ORDER v. STEPHEN B. RYE ET AL., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, proceeding without counsel in this action, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is unable to pay such fees). However, because venue does not lie in this district, the court orders that this action be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding a court may raise and decide the issue of venue sua sponte). I. Venue Under the federal venue statute, a plaintiff may bring a civil action in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides (if all defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located); (2) a judicial district in which a substantial…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.