(PC) Watts v. County of Colusa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 QUINTON WATTS, Case No. 24-cv-01789 NC (PR)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER OF TRANSFER

13 v.

14 COUNTY OF COLUSA, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a former prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983, against the County of Colusa. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint seeks damages for the 20 violation of Plaintiff’s rights during criminal proceedings in the County of Colusa. Id. at 21 3-5. Because the acts complained of occurred in Colusa County, which lies within the 22 venue of the Eastern District of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 84(b), venue properly lies in 23 that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The same is true if Plaintiff 24 were to file a habeas petition challenging that state conviction: the traditional venue is in 25 the district of conviction or sentencing, which is also Colusa County. See Habeas L.R. 26 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. 1 Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal.…