Pringle v. Gentry et al

Filing 41

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 6/27/18: The parties are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days, why this case should not be transferred to the District of Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMELA DENISE PRINGLE, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-2206 TLN AC (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AMANDA GENTRY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, and the case was accordingly referred to the 18 Magistrate Judge by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff is a California resident who, on 19 October 23, 2017, brought a complaint containing four causes of action against seven defendants 20 (Amanda Gentry, Cindy McDonald, Shannon Cluney, Noel Barlow-Hust, Sandy Jones, Judy 21 Mesick, and Mark Alan Kubinski), all of whom are employees of the Idaho Department or Board 22 of Correction or the Idaho Attorney General’s Office. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendants filed a motion 23 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and venue on February 8, 2018. ECF No. 12. Following a 24 hearing, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations concluding that the Eastern 25 District of California lacked personal jurisdiction with respect to plaintiff’s first, third, and fourth 26 causes of action. ECF No. 27 at 1-10. The undersigned further recommended dismissal of the 27 second cause of action after sua sponte undertaking an analysis of the claim under the doctrine of 28 forum non conveniens. Id. at 10-13. 1 1 On May 8, 2018, District Judge Troy L. Nunley issued an order adopting the findings and 2 recommendations with respect to dismissal of plaintiff’s first, third, and fourth causes of action 3 for lack of personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 31. However, upon finding that the plaintiff did not 4 have an adequate opportunity to brief the issue of forum non conveniens, Judge Nunley referred 5 the issue back to the undersigned for further proceedings. Id. at 2. The same day, the 6 undersigned issued a minute order requiring the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the 7 issue of forum non conveniens. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff and defendants each submitted a response 8 to the court’s request and replies to one another’s responses. ECF Nos. 33-36. 9 Now before the undersigned is defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiff’s 10 second cause of action, the only cause of action remaining in this case. ECF No. 12, 31. 11 Defendant’s motion seeks only dismissal for improper venue or for lack of personal jurisdiction. 12 ECF No. 12 at 3. Although the undersigned initially recommended dismissal of plaintiff’s second 13 cause of action on grounds of forum non conveniens, plaintiff correctly points out that the venue 14 transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404, is the correct vehicle for the transfer of a case between district 15 courts in which either venue may be permissible, but a venue other than the one chosen by the 16 plaintiff is preferable. ECF No. 35 at 4. 17 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court “[f]or the convenience of parties and 18 witnesses, in the interest of justice, may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 19 where it might have been brought....” This statute “partially displaces the common law doctrine 20 of forum non conveniens” with respect to transfers between federal courts. See Decker Coal 21 Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.1986). In passing § 1404(a), 22 Congress “intended to permit courts to grant transfers upon a lesser showing of inconvenience” 23 than is necessary for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Norwood v. 24 Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955) (emphasis added). The factors considered in deciding 25 whether to transfer a case pursuant to § 1404(a) are largely the same as those considered in a 26 forum non conveniens analysis, but the “discretion to be exercised [by the district court] is 27 broader.” Id. A transfer of venue pursuant to § 1404(a) may arise pursuant to the motion of 28 either party or by the court sua sponte, so long as the parties are first given the opportunity to 2 1 present their views on the issue. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing 2 Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 934 (D.C. Cir.1974)). 3 In light of the foregoing, the parties are each ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within 14 4 days, why this case should not be transferred to the District of Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1404. 6 DATED: June 27, 2018. 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?