Blacher v. Johnson et al
Filing
105
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)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
MARLON BLACHER,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
v.
S. JOHNSON,
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)
Defendant.
13
Marlon Blacher (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
14
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion
15
for change of venue and petition for full disclosure (“the Motion”). (ECF No. 100). Plaintiff
16
complains about how Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone handled the recent settlement
17
conference in this case, and requests a change in venue to either the Northern District of
18
California or the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff also requests
19
“full disclosure concerning the appointment and tenure” of Judge Boone.
20
The Court will deny the motion. As to Plaintiff’s request for a change of venue, Plaintiff
21
has not satisfied the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 28 U.S.C. § 1404; 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
22
Additionally, the Court will not exercise its discretion to transfer this case to the Sacramento
23
Division. Plaintiff simply complains about Judge Boone, and alleges a general bias in the
24
community against inmates. However, Judge Boone is not the not the presiding judge or the
25
referral judge in this case. Judge Boone merely served as a settlement conference judge in an
26
attempt to facilitate resolution of the case. Moreover, Plaintiff has not submitted any admissible
27
evidence of the alleged bias. Not to mention that the alleged bias appears to concern Judge
28
Boone’s legal opinions expressed confidentially during the settlement conference, rather than a
1
1
interest outside of the litigation that would render him unfairly partial to one side or the other.
2
As to Plaintiff’s request for “full disclosure concerning the appointment and tenure” of
3
Judge Boon, it will be denied. Plaintiff’s request is vague and unfounded. Plaintiff already has
4
information publicly available regarding Judge Boone. Again, Judge Boone is not the presiding
5
or referral judge. Judge Boone generously agreed to conduct a settlement conference in order to
6
facilitate a resolution of the case acceptable to all parties. Learning further information about his
7
appointment is not relevant to any matter in this case, or to any judge presiding over the merits of
8
the case.
9
10
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is
DENIED.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
Dated:
May 19, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?