Rouse v. Brown et al

Filing 14

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/5/15. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(napS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2015) [Transferred from cand on 2/6/2015.]

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7

BRUCE A. ROUSE,
Plaintiff,

8
9

vs.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

EDMUND G. BROWN, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-1020 PJH (PR)

/
12
Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
13
that was dismissed and closed at screening. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in
14
part, and remanded the case back to this court to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file an
15
amended complaint.
16
Plaintiff named as defendants Governor Brown, Director Beard of the California
17
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court
18
judge who sentenced him to prison. Plaintiff alleged that the prison system is severely
19
overcrowded and he is entitled to money damages and to have his criminal record
20
expunged. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and
21
equitable relief and affirmed the dismissal of the Santa Clara County Superior Court judge.
22
The case was remanded for plaintiff to file an amended complaint for damages and allege
23
injuries suffered as a result of prison overcrowding against Director Beard and Governor
24
Brown in their individual capacities.
25
While the Santa Clara County Superior Court judge resided in this district, his
26
dismissal from this action was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff states that Governor
27
Brown and Director Beard reside in Sacramento, CA which lies in the Eastern District of
28
California. When plaintiff filed this case he was incarcerated in Corcoran, CA which is also

1

located in the Eastern District. Plaintiff is now incarcerated in Chino, CA which is located in

2

the Central District of California.

3

Venue is proper in the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the

4

defendants reside in the same state, (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events

5

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the

6

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

7

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. §

8

1391(b). It appears that venue properly lies in the Eastern District of California.

9

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why this case should not be transferred to the
Eastern District. The time to respond has passed and plaintiff has not submitted a

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

response or otherwise communicated with the court. Accordingly, this case is

12

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

13

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2015.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

16
17

G:\PRO-SE\PJH\CR.13\Rouse1020.transfer.wpd

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2