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)

Download PDF
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?