Daugherty v. Procunier, 71-2492.
| Decision Date | 29 February 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2492.,71-2492. |
| Citation | 456 F.2d 97 |
| Parties | John Edward DAUGHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. K. PROCUNIER, Director of the Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John E. Daugherty, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., Joyce F. Nedde, Eugene Kaster, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before CHAMBERS, KOELSCH and CHOY, Circuit Judges.
John E. Daugherty, a California state prisoner, brought this civil action against the Director of the California Department of Corrections and certain prison wardens, guards, and administrators alleging deprivation of his civil rights. His complaint, which was filed in the Northern District of California, was dismissed for improper venue and failure to state a claim.
All the defendants reside in the Eastern District of California, and the claim arose in that district. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue in non-diversity actions is proper "... only in the judicial district where all defendants reside, or in which the claim arose ..." Therefore, venue was improper in the Northern District, and the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice to Daughtery's renewing his suit in the proper district.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harley v. Oliver
...that possess adequate personal and subject matter jurisdiction may hear the specific suit in question." See, also, Daugherty v. Procunier, (9 Cir. 1972) 456 F.2d 97. In Walker v. Weaver, (M.D.Pa.1967) 266 F.Supp. 415, the court at page 416 "In the first place, all of the named defendants ar......
-
Coleman v. Crisp
...District of Oklahoma and for this reason the Complaint should be dismissed. Jaynes v. Jaynes, 496 F.2d 9 (CA2 1974); Daugherty v. Procunier, 456 F.2d 97 (CA9 1972). See also Walker v. Weaver, supra, where the court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 ......
-
Charest v. Mitchem
...occurred." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Jones v.Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973); Daugherty v. Procunier, 456 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1972). The actions of which Plaintiff currently complains are occurring at Fountain which is located in the Southern District ......
-
Henderson v. Ind. Dep't of Corr.
...28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Jones v. Bales, 58 F.R.D. 453 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff'd, 480 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1973); Daugherty v. Procunier, 456 F.2d 97 (9th Cir. 1972). There does not appear to be a defendant who resides in the Northern District of Alabama. In addition, the actions of which plaint......