Morales v. Lewis, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER Denying Motion For Change Of Venue (Doc. 8 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 1/15/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE LUIS MORALES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:14-cv-00165-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CHANGE OF VENUE
(Doc. 8.)

GREG LEWIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I.

BACKGROUND
Jose Luis Morales ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

23

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing

24

this action on February 6, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate

25

Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made

26

an appearance. (Doc. 4.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the

27

Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case

28

until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).
1

1

The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on November 24, 2014,

2

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim and requiring Plaintiff to file an amended

3

complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 7.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for

4

change of venue, which is now before the court. (Doc. 8.)

5

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

6

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

7

the Northern District of California, because some of his claims in the Complaint arose from

8

events occurring in the Northern District. Plaintiff asserts that his remaining claims, against

9

defendants residing in the Eastern District, are insufficient for Plaintiff to move forward.

10

Plaintiff requests the court to transfer this case to the Northern District, where he will amend

11

the complaint.

12

A.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). The decision to transfer venue of a civil action under § 1404(a) lies

22

soundly within the discretion of the trial court. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

23

498 (9th Cir. 2000).

Change of Venue

24

Discussion

25

Plaintiff=s claims in the Complaint stem from events that occurred at PBSP in Crescent

26

City, California, and at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California. PBSP is

27

located within the boundaries of the Northern District of California, and KVSP is located

28

within the boundaries of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, venue for Plaintiff’s
2

1

claims arising at PBSP is proper in the Northern District, while venue for the claims arising at

2

KVSP is proper in the Eastern District of California.1 Thus, the claims in this action arising at

3

PBSP could have been brought in the Northern District of California.

4

The court’s November 24, 2014 order dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for

5

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff now seeks to proceed at the

6

Northern District of California with his claims arising there. In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s

7

entire Complaint has been dismissed by this court, Plaintiff’s remedy at this stage of the

8

proceedings is to file a new case at the Northern District which includes only the claims arising

9

in the Northern District. Plaintiff was advised in the court’s order of November 24, 2014 that

10

his claims against defendants employed by the CDCR at PBSP should be filed in the U. S.

11

District Court for the Northern District of California. (Id. at 2 n. 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

12

motion for change of venue shall be dismissed.

13

III.

14
15

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for change

of venue, filed on December 22, 2014, is DENIED.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 15, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In fact, the court’s order of November 24, 2014, advised Plaintiff that his claims against
defendants employed by the CDCR at PBSP should be filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. (Doc. 7 at 2 n. 2.)
3