Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Eugene Leon Price, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The defendants are Misiran and other named parties. The filing header identifies the matter as Case 2:26-cv-12182-FWS-MBK, Document 9, filed October 16, 2026, while the caption styles the case No. 2:25-cv-0865 EFB P; both identifiers appear in the order and neither is treated as a correction of the other.
The order was issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, as the caption states, and it merely transfers the case to the Central District of California. The order sets out 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which permits a civil action to be brought in a district where any defendant resides if all defendants reside in that state, where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or, failing those, where any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
The court then applied that venue framework to this case. It stated that the claim arose in Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California, and concluded that the action therefore should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The order is dated October 15, 2026, and the matched docket entry attributes the signed order to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan and reflects that the case was closed in the transferring court upon transfer.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that venue was improper in the Eastern District of California. Its operative finding was that the claim arose in Los Angeles County, which lies within the Central District of California, so the action should have been filed in the Central District rather than the Eastern District.
Rather than dismissing the action, the court invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which allows a federal court to transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district in the interest of justice, citing Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The operative directive orders that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The transfer is the disposition of the case in the Eastern District: the docket entry reflects that the case was closed there upon transfer. The order resolves venue against the plaintiff's chosen forum but preserves the action itself by transferring rather than dismissing it, and it does not decide the merits or the pending in forma pauperis application.
Key Takeaways
- A § 1983 action by a state prisoner belongs in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, not merely where the suit was filed.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court faced with a case filed in the wrong district may transfer it to the correct district in the interest of justice instead of dismissing it, preserving the plaintiff's claims.
- Because the claim arose in Los Angeles County, proper venue lay in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), so the Eastern District ordered transfer rather than adjudication on the merits.
- The in forma pauperis application under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is not decided by this order; it travels with the case for the transferee court to address alongside screening.
- The order is dated October 15, 2026, filed October 16, 2026, and the matched docket entry attributes the signed transfer order to Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the practical operation of § 1406(a) in prisoner civil rights litigation: a pro se plaintiff who files in the wrong district is not penalized with dismissal when transfer serves the interest of justice, but the forum is still corrected to the district with the genuine connection to the claim.
It also confirms that venue under § 1391(b) turns on where the events giving rise to the claim occurred, here Los Angeles County, rather than on the plaintiff's custody or convenience, and that transfer closes the case in the transferring court while leaving the merits for the transferee court.