Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 63

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Present Action to the Northern District of California for Convenience 54 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/18/16. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES A. MILLER,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.

15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

16

1:12-cv-00353-DAD-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO TRANSFER PRSENT ACTION TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FOR CONVENIENCE

Defendants.

(ECF No. 54)

17
18

Charles A. Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the

20

present action to the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 54). For the reasons below, the

21

Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to transfer.

22

I.

23

This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Fresno County

24

Superior Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CECG02100). On March 8, 2012, certain

25

defendants removed the case to federal court and requested the court to screen the complaint

26

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.)

PRCOEDURAL HISTORY

On October 4, 2012, the Court1 granted

27
28

1

All Magistrate Judge orders before October 12, 2015 were issued by Magistrate
Judge Gary S. Austin.
1

1

Defendants’ motion for the court to screen the complaint. (ECF No. 16.)

2

On October 17, 2013, the Court dismissed the Complaint for violation of Rule 8(a) of

3

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) On December 2,

4

2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 35.) On June 19, 2014, the Court

5

issued an order striking the First Amended Complaint for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the

6

court’s order of October 17, 2013. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a Second

7

Amended Complaint. (Id.)

8

Complaint. (ECF No. 44.) The Court screened the Second Amended complaint on June 29,

9

2015. (ECF No. 46.) The Court found that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint stated a

10

cognizable Eighth Amendment medical claim against defendant Officer M. Medina for not

11

allowing him to sit down instead of standing, but found that the Second Amended Complaint

12

failed to state any other claims. (ECF No. 46). The Court gave Plaintiff a choice of going

13

forward on that one claim or further amending his complaint.

On August 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

14

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, asking for District Court

15

to conduct a de novo review and arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred in dismissing all but

16

one claim (with leave to amend). (ECF No. 47.) On July 16, 2015, District Judge Lawrence J.

17

O’Neill denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 48.)

18

Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 49) The Court

19

screened Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims for

20

against Defendants Medina, Chudy and Frederichs for Deliberate Indifference to Serious

21

Medical Needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as well as for violation of Government

22

Code § 845.6. (ECF No. 60.) The Court found that the Third Amended Complaint also stated a

23

related Bane Act claim against Defendant Medina.

24

cognizable claims against Defendants Eddings and Walker for Retaliation in violation of the

25

First Amendment, as well as for violation of the Bane Act. The Court gave Plaintiff the choice

26

of proceeding only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, or indicating that he does not

27

agree to proceed only on those claims, subject to findings and recommendations consistent with

28

the Court’s order.
2

The Court also found that it stated

1

On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court that he wished to proceed on the claims

2

found cognizable so long as he did not waive the right to object to the dismissal of the other

3

claims. (ECF No. 61.)

4

recommendations to the District Court, to permit certain claims and defendants to go forward,

5

and others to be dismissed with prejudice, as described below. (ECF No. 62.)

On October 13, 2016, the Court submitted findings and

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER

6

II.

7

Plaintiff requests that the Court transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for Northern

8

District of California, where Plaintiff’s later-filed case, Miller v. CDCR, et al., Case No. 5:16-

9

cv-02431-EMC is pending (“the Northern District case”). (ECF No. 54.) The Northern District

10

case concerns allegations against Dr. Zahed Ahmed and other medical professionals from CTF-

11

Soledad. It concerns events occurring after June 10, 2014. Currently pending in the Northern

12

District case is Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion for

13

preliminary-permanent injunction to compel defendants to provide Plaintiff with a total knee

14

replacement “arthroplasty.”

15

screening stage and the parties have engaged in written discovery.

The Northern District case has already proceeded past the

16

In support of his motion, Plaintiff notes that his case in this district encountered many

17

delays and thus has been pending for many years. (ECF No. 54.) Plaintiff also claims that the

18

Northern District case is merely an extension of the current case and involved similar

19

allegations of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff notes that there are

20

some overlapping defendants to the extent they reside in CTF-Soledad, although the allegations

21

in this action involving Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) are not present in the Northern

22

District case. Plaintiff argues that convenience of the witnesses and judicial economy favor

23

transfer.

24

In response, Defendants filed a notice of related cases, notifying this Court that the two

25

cases involve one overlapping defendant and some related questions of law and fact. (ECF No.

26

57.) Defendants claimed that transfer to the Northern District was not warranted because the

27

events at issue did not overlap in time. However, Defendants suggested that the Northern

28

District case could be transferred to this Court. Defendants also filed an opposition to the
3

1

motion to transfer, arguing that while they did not oppose consolidation of the two cases, this

2

district was the more convenient forum. (ECF No. 58.) Defendants point to a first-to-file

3

doctrine that prefers consolidation to the earlier-filed case.

4

III.

5

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

6

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

7

brought . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing the balance

8

of conveniences favors the transfer. See Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611

9

F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

10
11

In considering a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a), the court may weigh a
number of factors, including:

12

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2)
the state that is most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff's choice of
forum; (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum; (6) the differences
in the costs of litigation in the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory
process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and, (8) the ease
of access to sources of proof.

13
14
15
16
17

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR MOTION TO TRANSFER

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

18

The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when

19

a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld

20

Prod., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir. 1991). A district court examines three factors in

21

deciding whether to apply the rule: the chronology of the two actions, the identity of the parties

22

involved, and the similarity of the issues at stake. Id. at 625. “The circumstances under which

23

an exception to the first-to-file rule typically will be made include bad faith, anticipatory suit,

24

and forum shopping.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (internal quotations omitted). Further, “[a]n

25

ample degree of discretion, appropriate for disciplined and experienced judges, must be left to

26

the lower courts.” Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co., 342 U.S. 180,

27

183-184 (1952).

28

\\\
4

1

IV.

2

Plaintiff’s motion to transfer is unusual. Plaintiff chose to file two separate lawsuits—

DISCUSSION REGARDING MOTION TO TRANSFER

3

one in Fresno and one in Monterey. Now it is Plaintiff who consolidation and transfer away

4

from Fresno.

5

Plaintiff also files this motion many years into the litigation. As Plaintiff notes, this

6

case has been pending in this Court since 2012. During that time, Plaintiff has filed multiple

7

amendments to his complaints, which have been screened first by Magistrate Judge Gary S.

8

Austin, and more recently by the undersigned judge. Plaintiff has repeatedly disagreed with the

9

screening orders from this Court. At the time Plaintiff filed his motion to transfer, Plaintiff was

10

still awaiting another screening order of an amended complaint, and Plaintiff so disagreed with

11

the prior screening order that he had requested reconsideration from the District Court, which

12

was denied. (ECF No. 47, 48)

13

On the other hand, Plaintiff recently received a favorable ruling in the Northern District

14

case. On June 22, 2016, United States District Judge Edward M. Chen, presiding in the

15

Northern District action, held that Plaintiff’s complaint stated cognizable claims for violation of

16

the Eighth Amendment against Dr. Tropup and Dr. Schultz, who allegedly created false or

17

misleading x-ray reports used to support the denial of total knew replacement (“TKR”) surgery;

18

as well as for retaliation against Dr. Ahmed, Dr. Bright, Dr. Posson, nurse Deluna, and nurse

19

Knight for retaliation as they allegedly denied him proper medical care because of Mr. Miller’s

20

extensive complaining and grievance-filing activity. Indeed, even though it covered different

21

claims and almost completely different defendants, Plaintiff sent the Northern District

22

screening order to this Court. (ECF No. 59)

23

In their motion papers, Plaintiff and Defendants appear to agree that the cases should be

24

consolidated but differ as to where they should be. Not surprisingly, Plaintiff now requests that

25

both cases be transferred to the Northern District, which just issued a favorable ruling.

26

Defendants request that the cases be transferred to this Court, which has issued unfavorable

27
28
5

1
2

rulings in the past.2
With this background in mind, it appears to the Court that Plaintiff’s motion to transfer

3

is an attempt to forum shop and have his claims in this case transferred to a judge Plaintiff

4

believes is more inclined to support the Plaintiff, rather than a genuine concern for the

5

convenience of the witnesses and judicial economy. Likely, Defendants’ opposition to the

6

motion to transfer, and request to transfer the actions to this court, is similarly motivated by

7

forum shopping. In any event, judicial selection based on rulings in the cases is not a proper

8

reason to transfer cases. This Court finds that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), it is not in the

9

interests of justice to transfer this case to the Northern District.3

10

In any event, the factors relevant to determining the most convenient forum are not

11

dispositive here. The Plaintiff chose Fresno originally, although in Fresno Superior Court, but

12

has since changed his mind. If the Court’s Findings and Recommendations are adopted, the

13

overlapping defendants of the CDCR and Dr. Ahmed will be dismissed in this case and thus no

14

defendants will be in common. The two cases have similar issues, but cover different periods

15

of time. This case concerns PVSP, whereas both cases concern CTF-Soledad. CTF-Soledad is

16

similarly distant from both courthouses. Thus, while it would have been possible for Plaintiff

17

to file one complaint in one forum covering all claims and time periods, there is no

18

overwhelming reason to combine them now, nor to prefer one jurisdiction over another.

19

The Court appreciates Plaintiff’s frustration with the pace of his case in this Court. This

20

case has been pending many years. Screening orders repeatedly took many months to issue,

21

and the Plaintiff repeatedly disagreed with their conclusions. The Court has since issued what

22

it expects will be the last screening order in this case. Because Plaintiff would not agree to go

23

forward only on the claims found cognizable by this Court, it was necessary to issue Findings

24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court will not characterize its most recent screening order as either favorable or
unfavorable to any party, as it allowed certain claims and denied others. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff agreed with the
finding of cognizable claims, but attempted to reserve all rights to appeal the dismissal of all other claims and
defendants. (ECF No. 61.) The Court has issued findings and recommendations to the District Judge regarding
what claims in the Third Amended Complaint can proceed and which should be dismissed at this time. (ECF No.
62.)
3
This Court does not preclude the Northern District court from transferring its case to this
forum, should it choose to do so.
6

1

and Recommendations so that the District Judge could finally determine which claims and

2

defendants would proceed. Nevertheless, the case is proceeding and this judge commits to

3

move this case forward expeditiously once the scope of the complaint is finally resolved.

4

V.

5

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer the Present Action to the

6

CONCLUSION

United States District Court, Northern District of California, is denied.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 18, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7