Blacher v. Johnson et al
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 100 Motion for Change of Venue and Petition for Full Disclosure, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/19/17. (Gonzalez, R)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:12-cv-01159-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND PETITION
FOR FULL DISCLOSURE
(ECF NO. 100)
Marlon Blacher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion
for change of venue and petition for full disclosure (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 100). Plaintiff
complains about how Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone handled the recent settlement
conference in this case, and requests a change in venue to either the Northern District of
California or the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff also requests
“full disclosure concerning the appointment and tenure” of Judge Boone.
The Court will deny the motion. As to Plaintiff’s request for a change of venue, Plaintiff
has not satisfied the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1404; 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Additionally, the Court will not exercise its discretion to transfer this case to the Sacramento
Division. Plaintiff simply complains about Judge Boone, and alleges a general bias in the
community against inmates. However, Judge Boone is not the not the presiding judge or the
referral judge in this case. Judge Boone merely served as a settlement conference judge in an
attempt to facilitate resolution of the case. Moreover, Plaintiff has not submitted any admissible
evidence of the alleged bias. Not to mention that the alleged bias appears to concern Judge
Boone’s legal opinions expressed confidentially during the settlement conference, rather than a
interest outside of the litigation that would render him unfairly partial to one side or the other.
As to Plaintiff’s request for “full disclosure concerning the appointment and tenure” of
Judge Boon, it will be denied. Plaintiff’s request is vague and unfounded. Plaintiff already has
information publicly available regarding Judge Boone. Again, Judge Boone is not the presiding
or referral judge. Judge Boone generously agreed to conduct a settlement conference in order to
facilitate a resolution of the case acceptable to all parties. Learning further information about his
appointment is not relevant to any matter in this case, or to any judge presiding over the merits of
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 19, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?