Montano v. Adams et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow Transferring Action to the Eastern District of California. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, in the interest of justice, this action is HEREBY TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk shall effect such transfer forthwith and notify Plaintiff. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter CV-22) (jtil) [Transferred from cacd on 3/24/2015.]

O/JS-6 ENTER

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO V. MONTANO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DARREL ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No. CV 14-0323 MMM (JCG)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

17
18

I.

19

PROCEEDINGS

20

On January 13, 2014, plaintiff Antonio V. Montano (“Plaintiff”), a California

21

prisoner proceeding pro se, lodged a civil rights complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to

22

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl. at 1, 7.)

23

Therein, Plaintiff essentially alleges that several prison officials recklessly and

24

unlawfully facilitated his transfer from Corcoran State Prison to Avenal State Prison,

25

“a contaminated facility” where Plaintiff contracted Coccidioidomycosis or “Valley

26

Fever.” (Id. at 3-4, 7-8.)

27
28

Both Corcoran and Avenal State Prisons are located in Kings County,
California.

1

II.

2

DISCUSSION

3

As a rule, proper venue over a civil rights action lies only in: (1) a judicial

4

district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state; (2) a

5

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

6

claim occurs, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is

7

situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found if there is no

8

district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

9

Importantly, venue may be raised by the Court sua sponte. See Costlow v.

10

Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). If the Court determines that venue is

11

improper, the Court may either dismiss the action or, in the interest of justice, transfer

12

the action to any district in which it could have been properly brought. 28 U.S.C.

13

§ 1406(a); Dist. No. 1, Pac. Coast Dist. v. State of Alaska, 682 F.2d 797, 799 (9th Cir.

14

1982). Even if the Court determines that venue may be proper, the Court may still, in

15

the interest of justice, transfer the action for the convenience of the parties and

16

witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In either event, the decision to transfer rests within

17

the sound discretion of the Court. King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir.

18

1992) (per curiam).

19

Here, “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s]

20

occurred” at Corcoran and Avenal State Prisons, in Kings County, California. (See

21

Compl. at 2-12); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In fact, Plaintiff specifically affirms that “[t]he

22

events giving rise to the alleged claims against [all] Defendants . . . arose in Kings

23

County[.]” (Compl. at 8.) And, according to the Complaint, all Defendants work in

24

Corcoran, Avenal, or Sacramento (i.e., Kings or Sacramento County). (Id. at 3-4.)

25

Significantly, none of Defendants’ conduct is alleged to have occurred within

26

the geographical jurisdiction of the Central District. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)

27

(delineating the seven counties comprising the Central District). Nor is any Defendant

28

alleged to reside in the Central District. (See Compl. at 3-4); cf. Muenzberg v. Barnes,
2

1

1998 WL 61207, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 1998) (holding that state officials “must be

2

deemed to reside at the place where they perform their official duties”).

3

Thus, the Central District is not the proper venue for Plaintiff’s action. Rather,

4

the proper venue is the Eastern District of California (“Eastern District”), which has

5

jurisdiction over both Kings and Sacramento Counties. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

6

Moreover, the Eastern District appears to be the superior venue to advance the

7

interest of justice in this case. Specifically, the Eastern District would prove more

8

convenient for the parties and witnesses, both of which are presumably located in

9

either Kings or Sacramento County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Further, the Eastern

10

District would allow for ease of access to the relevant evidence, if any, such as

11

Corcoran and Avenal State Prison records. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211

12

F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). And, to the extent injunctive relief may be

13

warranted, as Plaintiff appears to suggest, the Eastern District would be more closely

14

situated to Corcoran and Avenal State Prisons, and thus better able to monitor

15

compliance. (See Compl. at 12); see also Jones, 211 F.3d at 498-99.

16

Accordingly, in the exercise of its discretion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s pro

17

se action should be transferred to the Eastern District to advance the interest of justice.

18

III.

19

ORDER

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, in the interest of justice, this action is

21

HEREBY TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern

22

District of California. The Clerk shall effect such transfer forthwith and notify

23

Plaintiff.

24
25
26
27

DATED: March 23, 2015

___________________________________
HON. MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

3