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)
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?