Chacon v. Cerrini, et al.
Filing
8
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 10/5/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) [Transferred from cand on 10/7/2011.]
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
EDIN A. CHACON,
5
Plaintiff,
6
No. C 11-00122 CW (PR)
ORDER OF TRANSFER
v.
7
J. CERRINI, et al.,
8
Defendants.
____________________________ /
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at the California
11
Correctional Institution at Tehachapi (CCI), has filed this pro se
12
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
His motion for
13
leave to proceed in forma pauperis has been granted.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on December 11, 2008,
he was transferred from CCI to San Quentin State Prison (SQSP) to
attend the trial of his civil rights action against medical
personnel at Pelican Bay State Prison.1
Plaintiff remained at SQSP
until February 18, 2009, when he was transferred back to CCI.
Plaintiff claims that during the approximately three months he
spent at SQSP, Correctional Officer J. Cerrini retaliated against
him for his lawsuit by refusing to allow him access to legal
materials he required for his trial, verbally harassing him and
calling him a "stool pigeon" in front of other inmates, falsely
accusing him of misconduct in order to keep him in administrative
segregation, and intentionally throwing a food tray at him.
Further, Plaintiff maintains that after he returned to CCI in
1
See Chacon v. Gallian, et al., Case No. C 05-04880 SI (PR).
1
February 2009, CCI institutional gang investigators T. Crouch and
2
J. Tyree, and CCI appeals coordinator K. Sampson, retaliated
3
against him for his lawsuit by revalidating Plaintiff as a gang
4
member based on false evidence allegedly found by Cerrini in
5
Plaintiff's cell at SQSP.
6
after he was revalidated based on such evidence, he filed an
7
administrative appeal at SQSP asking for the evidence to be removed
8
from his file, but SQSP institutional gang investigator E. Patao
9
and SQSP correctional lieutenant T. Amrhein-Conama retaliated
Additionally, Plaintiff complains that
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
against him by refusing to do so.
11
and equitable relief.
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
12
Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the
13
defendant has not filed a responsive pleading and the time for
14
doing so has not run.
15
(9th Cir. 1986).
16
diversity, venue is proper in (1) the district in which any
17
defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same
18
state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events
19
or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial
20
part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated;
21
or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if
22
there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
23
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
24
See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488
When jurisdiction is not founded solely on
In the present action, Plaintiff alleges facts concerning
25
defendants and events in two different judicial districts.
26
Specifically, SQSP is located in Marin County in the Northern
27
District of California, and CCI is located in Kern County in the
28
Eastern District of California.
See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a),(b).
2
1
Consequently, under § 1391(b), venue is proper in either district.
2
Where, however, an alternative forum with greater relation to the
3
defendants or the action exists than the forum in which the action
4
was filed, the action may be transferred to such alternative forum
5
"[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
6
justice."
7
See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Here, the Court concludes the Eastern District would be a more
8
convenient forum because Plaintiff is incarcerated at CCI in the
9
Eastern District, the Defendants responsible for Plaintiff's
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
revalidation as a gang member all are employed at CCI, the decision
11
to rely on the alleged false report by Cerrini and to revalidate
12
Plaintiff as a gang member was made by Defendants at CCI,
13
Plaintiff's retaliation claim against Cerrini is in large part
14
based on Cerrini's alleged falsification of the report relied upon
15
to revalidate Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's claims against the two
16
SQSP Defendants other than Cerrini stem from Plaintiff's
17
unsuccessful attempts to have those Defendants remove Cerrini's
18
report from Plaintiff's file.
19
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED in the interest of justice and for
20
the convenience of both the parties and the witnesses, and pursuant
21
to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), that this action be TRANSFERRED to the
22
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
23
California.
24
The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter forthwith.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
DATED: 10/5/2011
_________________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
3
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2
3
EDIN A. CHACON,
4
Case Number: CV11-00122 CW
Plaintiff,
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
6
J. CERRINI et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on October 5, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
13
14
17
Edin A. Chacon K-30713
California Correctional Institution
4B/6B 105L
P.O. Box 1906
Tehachapi, CA 93581
18
Dated: October 5, 2011
15
16
19
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?