Wade v. Chao et al

Filing 39

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/4/17, ORDERING that this case is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (Kastilahn, A)

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). On June 7,

20

2017, the undersigned issued an order granting the parties fourteen days to filing any objections

21

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

22

California. (ECF No. 29.) Therein, the undersigned noted that the events at issue in this action

23

appear to have taken place in the Northern District, and that the defendants had filed a motion to

24

dismiss asserting that that plaintiff had “filed numerous lawsuits in the Northern District against

25

the DOL and its employees,” and may have filed this action in this district “to circumvent the

26

filing restrictions he was under in the Northern District of California.” (Id. at 1.)

27

////

28

////
1

1

On June 16, 2017, plaintiff filed objections.1 (ECF No. 30.) Therein, plaintiff asserts that he did

2

not file this action in this court to circumvent his filing restrictions in the Northern District. (Id.

3

at 1.) However, plaintiff did file this action in this district “with the understanding that the Clerks

4

would transfer Plaintiff’s complaint to the Northern District.” (Id. at 2.)

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

16

Here, the events at issue took place in the Northern District. Plaintiff believed this action

17

would be transferred to the Northern District. And the parties have a substantial litigation history

18

in the Northern District. In this regard, even if plaintiff did not purposefully file this action in this

19

district to circumvent the filing restrictions in the Northern District, it appears to the undersigned

20

that this action should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District

21

of California.

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////

27
28

1

On June 20, 2017, defendants filed a statement of non-opposition to the transfer of this action to
the Northern District. (ECF No. 33.)
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United

2

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

3

Dated: July 4, 2017

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/wade004.transfer.ord

25
26
27
28
3