Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers on 12/13/2019
- Donna Ryu
- 4:21-cv-05654
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers, Judge Ryu transferred the civil-rights case to the Central District of California for proper venue.
Michael L. Davis and the USP Victorville Unit Officers and other defendants; the case was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California.
What happened
Michael L. Davis, a federal inmate representing himself, brought a civil-rights case against USP Victorville Unit Officers and others based on events from December 2019.
The court said the events occurred at USP Victorville in San Bernardino County and that the defendants appeared to reside there, making the Central District of California the proper venue rather than the Northern District of California.
Judge Donna M. Ryu transferred the case to the Central District of California under the federal venue statute and terminated all pending motions on the Northern District’s docket.
The detailed version
- Davis v. USP Victorville Unit Officers on 12/13/2019 · No. 4:21-cv-05654
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 9, 2021
Background
Michael L. Davis, a federal inmate incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater, filed this action without a lawyer under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, complaining of civil-rights violations. He also filed an application to proceed without paying the usual filing fee. Davis’s claims appeared to arise from incidents in December 2019, when he was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Victorville.
Venue Analysis
The court noted that USP Victorville is in San Bernardino County. It concluded that the alleged events occurred in San Bernardino County and that the defendants appeared to reside in the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the court determined that venue properly lay in the Eastern Division of the Central District of California, not in the Northern District of California.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the interest of justice. The clerk was ordered to transfer the case immediately. The court also terminated all pending motions on its docket because they were no longer pending in that district. The order identified the venue transfer as a non-dispositive matter within the magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.