Wade v. Perez, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/6/2017 ORDERING that any party may file objections to the transfer of this action to the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California within fourteen days; CONTINUING the Motion Hearing on 12 Motion to Dismiss to 7/28/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

E. K. WADE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2354 TLN DB PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

EDWARD HUGLER, Acting Secretary,
U.S. Department of Labor, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff, E. K. Wade, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

19

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Noticed for

20

hearing before the undersigned on June 9, 2017, is defendants’ March 15, 2017 motion to dismiss.

21

(ECF No. 12.)

22

However, plaintiff’s amended complaint identifies this action as being filed in the United

23

States District Court for the Norther District of California. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) The amended

24

complaint also alleges that “[t]his lawsuit should be assigned to the Northern Division of this

25

Court because a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to this lawsuit

26

occurred in Alameda County.” (Id. at 3.) Moreover, defendants’ motion to dismiss asserts that

27

this “action continues a series of actions filed by Wade in the Northern District of California,

28

alleging discrimination in employment,” (ECF No. 12-1 at 2), and that this action may have been
1

1

commenced in this district so that plaintiff could “circumvent the filing restrictions he was under

2

in the Northern District.” (Id. at 5.)

3

Venue in a civil action is generally proper in (1) a judicial district where any defendant

4

resides, if all defendants reside in the same State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial

5

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

6

(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the

7

action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28

8

U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, a Federal Tort Claims Act cause of action against the United States

9

may only be brought in the district in which plaintiff resides or wherein the alleged act or

10

omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). Nonetheless, “[f]or the convenience of parties and

11

witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

12

district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all

13

parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Here, given the amended complaint’s allegations, plaintiff’s litigation history, and the

14
15

possibility that plaintiff commenced this action in this district to circumvent filing restrictions, it

16

appears to the undersigned that this action should be transferred to the United States District

17

Court for the Northern District of California. The parties, however, will first be given an

18

opportunity to address this issue.

19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order any party may file objections to the

21

transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;

22

and

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1

2. The June 9, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is continued

2

to Friday, July 28, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street,

3

Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned.

4

Dated: June 6, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/wade2354.cont.hrg.transfer

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3