Montalvo v. CDCR Personnel

Filing 9

ORDER Severing Claims for Lack of Venue and Transferring Severed Claims to Proper Courts for Adjudication; ORDER for Clerk's Office to Send Copies to Proper Courts, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/24/17. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONFESSOR MONTALVO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. CDCR PERSONNEL, 15 Defendants. 1:16-cv-01078-GSA-PC ORDER SEVERING CLAIMS FOR LACK OF VENUE AND TRANSFERRING SEVERED CLAIMS TO PROPER COURTS FOR ADJUDICATION ORDER FOR CLERK’S OFFICE TO SEND COPIES TO PROPER COURTS 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Confessor Montalvo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff 22 filed the Complaint commencing this action, which is now before the court for screening. 23 (ECF No. 1.) 24 On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 25 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 6.) 26 Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 27 California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 28 reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 1 1 II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 2 The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 3 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 4 The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 5 legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 6 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 8 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 9 appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 10 A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 11 that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 12 not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 14 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 15 taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 16 Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 17 To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 18 ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. 19 Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as 20 true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 21 this plausibility standard. Id. 22 III. 23 24 VENUE The venue for some of Plaintiff’s claims is not proper in this court, and those claims shall be severed from the Complaint and transferred to the proper courts. 25 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action be brought in “(1) a judicial district 26 in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district 27 is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving 28 rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 2 1 situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 2 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 3 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391. In the interest of justice, a federal 4 court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. ' 5 1406(a); also see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise 6 defective venue sua sponte); see also Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 7 1991) (courts have broad discretion regarding severance). 8 In addition, pursuant to Rule 120(f) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 9 California, a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s 10 own motion, be transferred to another venue within the district. L.R. 120(f). 11 Discussion 12 Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California. 13 The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at three state prisons, (1) High Desert 14 State Prison (HDSP)1 in Susanville, California, (2) Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP)2 in 15 Crescent City, California, and (3) Corcoran State Prison (CSP)3 in Corcoran, California, when 16 Plaintiff was incarcerated at those institutions in the custody of the California Department of 17 Corrections and Rehabilitation. 18 Venue is not proper in this court for Plaintiff’s claims arising out of events at PBSP and 19 HDSP, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. PBSP is in Crescent City, Del 20 Norte County, California, which is located in the United States District Court for the Northern 21 District of California. HDSP is in Susanville, Lassen County, California, which is located in 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 For claims arising at HDSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Sergeant G. Harrison, Sergeant. B. Wheeler, Correctional Officer W. Jones, IGI B. Fleming, S&E M. Marin, IGI C/O N. Smith, Special Agent J.A. Harrison, and Special Agent P.P. Sprahue. 2 For claims arising at PBSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Deputy Director G. Giurbino, Director S. Hubbard, CCII J. Ryan, Z. Razavi (Ph.D.), Special Agent M. Ruff, Chief D. Rothchild, and CSR B. Lee. 3 For claims arising at CSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Captain R. Chavez, CCI T. Galaviz, Lieutenant S. Pina, CCII C. Villarrial, Chief Deputy Warden J. D. Smith, Sergeant N. Holland, Social Worker D. Prince, Captain R. Broomfield, and CCII T. Campbell. 3 1 the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 2 California. 3 Therefore, the court shall sever Plaintiff’s claims arising at PBSP and HDSP from the 4 Complaint and transfer those claims to the proper courts. Venue for Plaintiff’s claims arising 5 out of events at CSP is proper in this court, and those claims shall proceed in this action. 6 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 7 The court finds that venue is not proper in this court for Plaintiff’s claims arising at 8 PBSP and HDSP, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. Therefore, the court shall 9 sever those claims from the Complaint and transfer them to the proper courts for adjudication. 10 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiff’s claims arising at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, 12 are severed from this action for lack of venue and transferred to the Sacramento 13 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 14 California; 15 2. The Clerk=s Office shall forward to the Sacramento Division of United States 16 District Court for the Eastern District of California: 17 (1) a copy of this order, and 18 (2) a copy of the Complaint filed in this action on January 17, 2017 (ECF 19 20 No. 1); 3. Plaintiff’s claims arising at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, 21 California, are severed from this action for lack of venue and transferred to the 22 United States District Court for the Northern District of California; 23 4. The Clerk=s Office shall forward to the United States District Court for the 24 Northern District of California: 25 (1) a copy of this order, and 26 (2) a copy of the Complaint filed in this action on January 17, 2017 (ECF 27 No. 1); 28 4 1 5. 2 3 This case shall proceed with Plaintiff’s claims arising at Corcoran State Prison; and 6. 4 By separate order, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in this case as to the Corcoran State Prison claims only. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 24, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?