Wade v. Chao et al
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/6/17: Within fourteen days of the date of this order any party may file objections to the transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. HEARING as to 17 MOTION to DISMISS is continued to 7/28/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. 18 Motion for Extension of time is granted. (Kaminski, H)
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
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-0004 TLN DB PS
v.
ORDER
ELAINE CHAO, Former Secretary of
Labor,
16
Defendants.
17
Plaintiff, E. K. Wade, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the
18
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’ April 27, 2017 motion to dismiss.1
21
(ECF No. 17.) However, defendants’ motion to dismiss asserts that plaintiff has “filed numerous
22
lawsuits in the Northern District against the DOL and its employees,” and may have filed this
23
action in this district “to circumvent the filing restrictions he was under in the Northern District of
24
California.” (ECF No. 17-1 at 11.) Moreover, it appears from the allegations found in plaintiff’s
25
fourth amended complaint that the acts at issue in this action occurred within the boundaries of
26
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
27
28
1
Also pending before the court is plaintiff’s May 2, 2017 motion for a 15-day extension of time
to complete service. (ECF No. 18.) That motion will be granted.
1
1
Venue in a civil action is generally proper in (1) a judicial district where any defendant
2
resides, if all defendants reside in the same State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial
3
district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or
4
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the
5
action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28
6
U.S.C. § 1391(b). However, a Federal Tort Claims Act cause of action against the United States
7
may only be brought in the district in which plaintiff resides or wherein the alleged act or
8
omission occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). Nonetheless, “[f]or the convenience of parties and
9
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
10
district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all
11
parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
12
Here, given the amended complaint’s allegations, plaintiff’s litigation history, and the
13
possibility that plaintiff commenced this action in this district to circumvent filing restrictions, it
14
appears to the undersigned that this action should be transferred to the United States District
15
Court for the Northern District of California. The parties, however, will first be given an
16
opportunity to address this issue.
17
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
18
1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order any party may file objections to the
19
20
transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;
2. The June 9, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is continued
21
to Friday, July 28, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street,
22
Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;
23
24
3. Plaintiff’s May 2, 2017 motion for a 15-day extension of time (ECF No. 18) is granted.
Dated: June 6, 2017
25
26
27
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/wade2354.cont.hrg.transfer
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?