(PC) Broadnax v. State Controller's Office (CA), et al.

Filing 8

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Signed by Judge Peter H. Kang on 3/5/2025. (jaf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) [Transferred from cand on 3/6/2025.]

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

7
8

COTTRELL BROADNAX,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 25-cv-01321-PHK

Plaintiff,

9
v.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

STATE CONTROLLER'S OFFICE (CA), et
al.,

12

Defendants.

13
INTRODUCTION

14
15

Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), has filed a pro se civil

16

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has named as defendants the State Controller’s

17

Office (CA), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Office of Appeals,

18

the Office of Grievances, and KVSP Trust Account Office. The complaint is handwritten and

19

vague, but Plaintiff appears to be challenging the withdrawal of funds from his trust account to

20

pay filing fees for cases that he has filed in the United District Court for the Eastern District of

21

California, as well as withdrawal of funds to pay for postage or mailing fees. [Dkt. 5]. For the

22

reasons set forth below, the Court ORDERS that this action be transferred to the Eastern District

23

of California.

24
25

DISCUSSION

26

Venue is generally proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all

27

defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the

28

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

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction,

2

if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The

3

events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim(s) occurred at Kern Valley State Prison, which

4

is located in Delano, California. [Dkt. 5 at 1]. The Court has the authority to take Judicial Notice

5

of certain facts under the proper circumstances. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may

6

judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and

7

readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”). The Court

8

takes judicial notice that Delano, California is a city within Kern County, California. See

9

https://www.cityofdelano.org/105/Police-Department (“The city of Delano is the northernmost

10

city in the County of Kern.”).

11

The Complaint does not allege that any of the named defendants reside in this judicial

12

district. As noted, the Court has the authority to take Judicial Notice of facts which are not subject

13

to reasonable dispute because they can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

14

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The Court takes judicial

15

notice of the following geographic facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute and are

16

readily determined from sources (government websites) whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

17

questioned:

18
19
20

Two named defendants, the Office of Grievances and KVSP Trust Accounting Office, are
entities located at Kern Valley State Prison, in Kern County. See Dkt. 5.
The remaining defendants are entities located in Sacramento, California. The Executive

21

Office of the State Controller’s Office (CA) is located in Sacramento, California. See

22

https://www.sco.ca.gov/sco_divisions.html. The headquarters for the California Department of

23

Corrections and Rehabilitation is also located in Sacramento, California. See

24

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/opec-who-we-are/ (“CDCR headquarters in Sacramento”). The CDCR

25

Office of Appeals is also located in Sacramento, California. See https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/about-

26

cdcr/ooa/ (“Contact Us” lists Sacramento address). Sacramento is the capital of California and is

27

located in Sacramento County. See

28

https://www.saccounty.gov/Government/Pages/CitieswithintheCounty.aspx.
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

Kern County and Sacramento County both lie within the geographic boundaries of the

2

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). The

3

Plaintiff and all Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California. All the events giving

4

rise to this lawsuit occurred at Kern Valley State Prison, in the Eastern District of California.

5

Accordingly, venue for this action properly lies in the Eastern District of California.

6

Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this matter. [Dkt. 6]. However,

7

because no Defendants have yet been served or appeared, no Defendants have had an opportunity

8

to consent or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Nevertheless, a transfer of this action for lack

9

of venue is non-dispositive and therefore within a Magistrate Judge’s authority to order.

10

In an analogous procedural context, the Ninth Circuit held that a ruling that does “not

11

dispose of any claims or defenses and [does] not effectively deny [the plaintiff] any ultimate relief

12

sought” is non-dispositive and properly within a Magistrate Judge’s authority to order pursuant to

13

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir.

14

2013) (motion to stay).

15

Here, as in CMKM Diamonds, a transfer of venue does not address the merits of the

16

Parties’ claims, dispose of any claims or defenses, or foreclose any relief sought; nor does a

17

transfer of venue terminate the case within the federal court system. Instead, a transfer order

18

simply results in the action being transferred to another district court. Accordingly, a Magistrate

19

Judge has the authority to order the transfer a case for improper venue. See, e.g., Gomes v.

20

Mathis, No. CV 17-7022 SVW (SS), 2019 WL 11720210, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2019)

21

(collecting cases); Gomes v. Silver State Mortg., No. C 09-2340 RS, 2009 WL 10674100, at *2

22

(N.D. Cal. July 28, 2009); Paoa v. Marati, No. CIV. 07- 00370JMSLEK, 2007 WL 4563938, at

23

*2 (D. Haw. Dec. 28, 2007). Because this Court finds that venue is improper in this district as

24

discussed above, this Court has the authority to order transfer of this case for improper venue.

25
26

CONCLUSION

27

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the Court ORDERS that, in the interests of

28

justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States
3

1

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

2

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Date: March 5, 2025
______________________________________
PETER H. KANG
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4