1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DANNY ATTERBURY,
Plaintiff,
No. CIV S-05-1059 FCD DAD P
vs.
DAVE GRAZAINI, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
/
Plaintiff, an inmate confined in Napa State Hospital, has filed a complaint on the
form to be used by a prisoner seeking relief under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff ‘s complaint identifies the defendants as Dave Grazaini, Executive
Director of Napa State Hospital; Jeffrey Zwerin, Medical Director; Laurie Van Diver,
Community Program Director and social worker; and Adam Weiner, appointed lawyer. (Compl.
at 2.) Plaintiff’s complaint appears to concern medical care, although plaintiff alleges no facts
concerning the actions or inaction of the defendants. Plaintiff seeks damages in addition to
injunctive and declaratory relief.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on
diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all
Case 2:05-cv-01059-FCD-DAD Document 5 Filed 06/03/2005 Page 1 of 2
(PC) Atterbury v. Grazaini et al
Doc. 5
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject
of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is
no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
In this case, none of the defendants reside in the Eastern District of California.
Plaintiff’s claims appear to have arisen in Napa County, which is in the Northern District of
California. Therefore, plaintiff’s case should have been