Murphy v. Kelso et al

Filing 57

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Change Of Venue (Doc. 54 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/21/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

v.
(Doc. 54)
KELSO, et al.,
Defendants.
In this action, Plaintiff claims he suffered deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment resulting in permanent injury.

18

On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a change of venue to transfer

19

this action to another court because he feels that he is being held to the letter of the law, but that

20

defense counsel is "being allowed to move freely in the spirit of the law," and that he will not get

21

a fair trial in the present venue. (Doc. 54.)

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

action may be brought in – (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants

26

are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a

27

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. . . .” 28 U.S.C.

28

§1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating
1

1

that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. §1391(b);

2

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole

3

Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D.Cal. 2013).

4

Here, the events at issue occurred at SATF which is within the Fresno Division of the

5

Eastern District of California. While the location of Defendants' residences are not disclosed,

6

given their employment at SATF, it is more likely than not that they also reside in the Fresno

7

Division of the Eastern District of California. Further, Plaintiff has not even indicated where he

8

would like this action to be transferred – let alone demonstrated that the action could have been

9

brought in another district/division. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff is relying on the "interest

10

of justice" portion of section 1404(a) by arguing that he does not feel he will receive a fair trial in

11

the current venue, his complaints that he is being held to the letter of the law while defense

12

counsel is being allowed to move freely within the spirit of the law, is not founded upon any

13

reasonable grounds. It appears his complaints stem from the fact he has been denied appointment

14

of counsel which, unfortunately, given the incredible volume of pro se inmate litigants in this

15

jurisdiction and the dearth of attorneys who have indicated they are agreeable to taking these

16

cases.1

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court recognizes that it is difficult for a person who has not been schooled in the law to litigate a case.
However, though Plaintiff is entitled to more deferential treatment than he would otherwise receive if he was
represented by a lawyer—and he has received that—this does not mean that he is not mean that the Court may ignore
the law toward that end. Every court in this state—indeed, every court in this Circuit—no matter where it is situated,
is bound by the same obligation to serve the law. For example, the fact that the Court denies this motion does not
mean it is being too hard on Plaintiff; it means that he has failed to set forth any possible grounds that would allow
the relief he seeks.

2

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, in light of Plaintiff’s failure both to indicate

2

the district that he desires to have this case transferred to and to meet the initial threshold burden

3

of demonstrating that this action could have been brought in whatever district he desires having

4

this action transferred to, his motion for change of venue, filed November 21, 2014 (Doc. 54), is

5

DENIED.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 21, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3