Alvarado v. County of Tulare

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 14 Motion to Transfer Venue signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/30/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL DEAN ALVARADO, JR., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:17-cv-01396-BAM (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE v. (ECF No. 14) COUNTY OF TULARE, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Daniel Dean Alavarado, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro 18 se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was 19 initiated on October 3, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 20 Illinois, (ECF No. 1), and was transferred to this district on October 16, 2017, (ECF No. 5). 21 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s filing of April 13, 2018. (ECF No. 14.) Though 22 difficult to understand, Plaintiff appears to be requesting the transfer of this action to the United 23 States District Court for the Western District of Virginia and the reinstatement of a prior action in 24 that district, Alvarado v. County of Tulare, Case No. 3:17CV00040. (Id. at 3.) The filing will be 25 construed as a motion to transfer venue. 26 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 27 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 28 to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil 1 1 action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 2 are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 3 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 5 that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 6 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 7 Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 8 9 The events at issue here occurred in Tulare County, which is located within the boundaries of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff names as defendants the 10 County of Tulare; a Tulare County Sheriff’s deputy by the name of Rales or Ralez; and an 11 unspecified individual or individuals. There is no indication that any of the defendants “reside” 12 in, or that any of the events giving rise to this suit have taken place in, the Western District of 13 Virginia. Moreover, a review of the docket in Case No. 3:17CV00040 reveals that the case was 14 dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. Plaintiff has not 15 provided any new or additional information demonstrating that any defendant would now be 16 subject to personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Virginia. 17 Accordingly, venue is appropriate in this district, and Plaintiff’s motion for transfer of 18 venue, (ECF No. 14), is HEREBY DENIED. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 19 course. IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: /s/ Barbara April 30, 2018 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?