Crisp v. Wasco State Prison et al

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion Change of Venue, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/15/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OBIE CRISP,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-00816-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CHANGE OF VENUE
(Doc. 19.)

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Obie Crisp ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 30,

20

2013. (Doc. 1.) On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which awaits

21

the court’s requisite screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. (Doc. 13.)

22

On June 24, 2013, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (Doc. 5.)

24

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of

25

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as

26

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

27
28

On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue, which is now before the
court. (Doc. 19.)
1

1

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

2

Plaintiff brings a motion for change of venue from the Eastern District of California to

3

the Northern District of California, because he now resides at the California Health Care

4

Facility in Stockton, California, which he asserts is situated in the Northern District, “San

5

Francisco Division,” and it will pose a medical hardship if he is required to attend trial in

6

another venue. (Motion at 1 ¶1.) Plaintiff asserts that he is an obese ADA disabled patient in a

7

wheelchair, suffering from arthritis in his back and knees. Plaintiff also argues that because he

8

already has a case in the Northern District, it would be easier on the courts to have all of his

9

cases “under the same courthouse,” in light of his medical accommodations. (Motion at 1¶2.)

10

A.

11

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

12

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

13

brought." 28 U.S.C. ' 1404(a). The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than

14

one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in A(1) a judicial district where any

15

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a

16

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part

17

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any

18

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.@

19

28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). AUpon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or

20

proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the

21

discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same

22

district.@ 28 U.S.C. '1404(b). AA district court may order any civil action to be tried at any

23

place within the division in which it is pending.@ 28 U.S.C. '1404(c).

Change of Venue

24

Discussion

25

Plaintiff=s claims in the First Amended Complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '

26

1983, stem from events that occurred at Wasco State Prison (AWSP@) in Wasco, California, and

27

the sole named defendant was employed at WSP at the time of the events at issue. Because the

28

defendant resides in the Eastern District of California, and all of the events giving rise to
2

1

Plaintiff=s claim occurred in the Eastern District, venue for this action is proper only in the

2

Eastern District of California, and the action could not have been brought in any other district.

3

Therefore, the court may not transfer this case to the Northern District of California.

4

In any case, Plaintiff is mistaken in his assertion that Stockton, California, is situated in

5

the Northern District of California. The city of Stockton, located in San Joaquin County,

6

California, is within the boundaries of the Eastern District of California, Northern Division. In

7

the event that Plaintiff seeks to transfer his case to the Northern Division of the Eastern District

8

of California, Plaintiff has not shown good cause. Plaintiff’s argument based on the possibility

9

that he may be required to travel a distance to attend trial in this action is speculative at this

10

stage of the proceedings. Plaintiff’s case may be resolved without a trial, or Plaintiff may be

11

moved to another facility closer to the trial court during the pendency of this action. Plaintiff’s

12

argument that venue should be changed for the convenience of the court, so that all of his cases

13

are “under the same courthouse,” is without merit. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for change of

14

venue shall be denied.

15

III.

16
17

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

Plaintiff=s

motion

change of venue, filed on May 14, 2014, is DENIED.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 15, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

for