Michael T Pines v. Director of Atascadero State Hospital et al

Filing 8

ORDER OF TRANSFER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/8/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2018: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF). [Transferred from California Northern on 8/9/2018.]

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL T PINES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 18-cv-04386-SI
ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 1
DIRECTOR OF ATASCADERO STATE
HOSPITAL, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
14

Michael T. Pines, currently in custody at Atascadero State Hospital, has filed a “class

15

action complaint for civil rights 42 USC § 1983 and Bivens.” Docket No. 1. His complaint is now

16

before the court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

17

Pines alleges in his complaint that the plaintiff-class consists of prisoners who are being

18

held beyond their proper release date, having been transported from the California Department of

19

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to Atascadero State Hospital or Patton State Hospital.

20

Docket No. 1 at 3. He further alleges that his situation is typical: he “is still being held in

21

Atascadero, when it is clear he doesn’t meet any of the criteria for being a Mentally Disordered

22

Offender (“MDO”) under Penal Code § 2962.” Docket No. 1 at 3. He also alleges that, at some

23

unspecified date in the past, he spent about a year at Patton State Hospital “when he did not meet

24

criteria for being classified as mentally incompetent to stand trial.”

25

convictions occurred in San Diego County Superior Court. See Docket No. 6.

26

among other things, damages and an injunction preventing defendants from sending prisoners to

27

hospitals when those prisoners do not meet the criteria for placement as an MDO or due to

28

incompetency to stand trial. Docket No. 1 at 5.

Id.

Pines’ criminal
He requests,

Pines purports to bring the case as a class action, but he cannot bring a class action. “[A]

2

litigant appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”

3

Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962); see also Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d

4

1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975) (pro se prisoner-plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to

5

fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of a class). Pines thinks he would be a proper

6

class representative because he is in a unique position in that he “has been an Attorney since 1977

7

and has also been a patient at both Defendant Hospitals.” Docket No. 1 at 2. But he has been

8

disbarred, and is no longer authorized to practice law in California. See id.at 3. He is in the same

9

position as other pro se litigants: he has no authority to represent anyone other than himself. Thus,

10

the court looks at Pines’ claims on behalf of himself only for purposes of considering the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

appropriate venue for this action. The only potential claims in this action are that Pines has been

12

placed at Atascadero as an MDO and that he earlier was sent to Patton for restoration of his

13

competency to stand trial when he did not meet the criteria for either placement.

14

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may

15

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to

16

any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

17

Venue for this action is proper in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §

18

1391(b)(2). The Central District of California also would be the more convenient forum for

19

several reasons. Atascadero State Hospital is located in San Luis Obispo County and Patton State

20

Hospital is located in San Bernardino County. Both of those counties are within the venue of the

21

Central District of California. The witnesses and evidence likely will be found primarily in the

22

Central District of California as that is the district in which the relevant events and omissions

23

occurred and the plaintiff is in custody. None of the events or omissions giving rise to the

24

complaint occurred in the Northern District of California, and it does not appear that any witnesses

25

are located in the Northern District of California. Although Pines would prefer to litigate in the

26

Northern District of California, he does not reside here and does not allege that his claims have

27

any substantial connection to the Northern District of California.

28

Definitive Computer Serv., Inc., 1996 WL 101172, *2 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“Ordinarily, where the
2

See IBM Credit Corp. v.

1

forum lacks any significant contact with the activities alleged in the complaint, plaintiff’s choice

2

of forum is given considerably less weight, even if the plaintiff is a resident of the forum.”); 17

3

Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111,13[1][c] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.) (“When the chosen forum is

4

neither the plaintiff’s residence nor the place where the operative events occurred, the court is

5

likely to override the plaintiff’s choice . . . unless the plaintiff can show that some other valid

6

reason supports the plaintiff’s choice of forum”).

7

Accordingly, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice,

8

this action is now transferred to the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a). The

9

clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2018
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3