Gay v. Shaffer et al

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 03/21/17 granting 10 Motion to transfer venue. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

OMAR SHARRIEFF GAY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:16-cv-2533 GEB CKD P

ORDER

JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an action for violation of civil rights

18

under 42 U.S.C. §983. Plaintiff originally filed this action in the United States District Court for

19

the Northern District of California. On November 1, 2016, the Northern District transferred the

20

case here finding that:

21
22
23

A substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim(s) occurred, and the defendants named reside, in the counties
of Solano and/or Sacramento, which lie within the venue of the
Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Venue
therefore properly lies in the Eastern District. See id. § 1391(b).

24
25

On November 1, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion asking that this matter be transferred back

26

to the Northern District. Plaintiff’s complaint essentially involves interviews conducted by

27

certain defendants with plaintiff in order to determine plaintiff’s suitability for parole. The

28

interviews were conducted at plaintiff’s place of incarceration. Plaintiff admits that when he filed
1

1

this action he was housed at California State Prison, Solano. But, he clarifies that in paragraph 3

2

of his complaint he indicates “[d]uring all relevant times in this complaint, plaintiff was confined

3

at “CTF-C,” and that CTF-C is the Correctional Training Facility, in Soledad, California.

4

Soledad lies in Monterey County which is within the jurisdiction of the Northern District. Also,

5

there is no indication in the complaint where any defendant resides.1
Because the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Monterey County, and

6
7

because a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives deference in a motion for transfer of venue, Decker

8

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986), plaintiff’s motion to

9

transfer this action back to the Northern District will be granted.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 10) is granted; and

12

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

13

California.

14

Dated: March 21, 2017

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20

1
gray2533.21

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Although a fair assumption is that defendant Shaffer, the head of the California Board of Parole
Hearings, resides in Sacramento.
2