Williams v. Rodriguez et al

Filing 52

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Change Of Venue (Doc. 49 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/12/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LONNIE WILLIAMS,

11

1:09-cv-01882-LJO-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CHANGE OF VENUE
(Doc. 49.)

v.
12
P. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16

I.

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

17

Lonnie Williams (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner in the custody of the California Department

18

of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by

20

Plaintiff on October 27, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Fourth Amended

21

Complaint filed on January 19, 2012, against defendants C/O Torres and C/O Rodriguez for

22

retaliation under the First Amendment. (Doc. 36.) Service of process has been initiated, but no other

23

parties have appeared.

24

On August 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue, which is now before the

25

Court. (Doc. 49.)

26

II.

CHANGE OF VENUE

27

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

28

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28
1

1

U.S.C. § 1404(a). The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

2

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

3

defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

4

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject

5

of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no

6

district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). “Upon motion, consent

7

or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing

8

thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any

9

other division in the same district.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(b). “A district court may order any civil

10

action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(c).

11

Plaintiff brings a motion for change of venue, from the Fresno Division of the Eastern

12

District of California to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District California, on the grounds

13

that he is HIV-positive and has medical orders restricting him from being housed in Kings County

14

because of the danger of contracting Valley Fever. Kings County is located in the Fresno Division.

15

Plaintiff does not argue that venue is not proper in the Eastern District.1 Plaintiff’s concern

16

is that he will be transferred to a prison facility in Kings County where he will be exposed to Valley

17

Fever. Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”) in

18

Represa, California, which is located in the Sacramento Division.

19

Plaintiff is advised that a change of venue from the Fresno Division to the Sacramento

20

Division will not prevent him from being transferred by the CDCR to a facility within the Fresno

21

Division.2 To the extent that Plaintiff is concerned that he will be transferred to a facility in Kings

22

County for trial in this action, such transfer depends on whether this case goes to trial and will not

23
1

24
25

Because all of the defendants reside in the Eastern District, and all of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claims occurred in the Eastern District, venue for this action is proper in the Eastern District, and the action could not
have been brought in any other district.
2

26
27
28

The Court lacks jurisdiction to issue an order requiring prison officials to refrain from transferring him to a
particular facility, because the Court does not have such a case or controversy before it in this action. See Zepeda v.
United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985); City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95,
102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983); Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church and State,
Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 757-58 (1982).

2

1

be decided until that juncture. As stated above, “A district court may order any civil action to be

2

tried at any place within the division in which it is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(c). Therefore,

3

Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue shall be denied, without prejudice to renewal of the motion

4

at a later stage of the proceedings.

5

III.

6
7

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue, filed on August 20, 2012, is

DENIED without prejudice.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

September 12, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3