(PC) Rodriguez v. Ralph Diaz et al

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/19/2021 ORDERING, for the reasons set forth in the 4/13/2020 Screening order, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and will not be served. Within 30 days plaintiff may file an amended complaint in accordance with this order. The Clerk shall send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint form and a copy of the 4/13/2020 Screening Order. (Yin, K)

Case 2:20-cv-01650-AC Document 17 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHNATHAN C. RODRIGUEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:20-cv-1650 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

The complaint in this case was originally filed in this court on February 26, 2020. ECF No. 1. It

19

was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of

20

California on the ground that venue was not proper in this district because “the defendants are

21

located in and the claims arose in the County of Riverside.” ECF No. 4.

22

After the case was transferred, the complaint was screened by a magistrate judge in the

23

Central District of California and dismissed with leave to amend. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff did not

24

file an amended complaint and instead proceeded to file objections to the transfer of this action on

25

the ground that venue was proper in the Eastern District of California because defendant Diaz is

26

located in Sacramento, which lies within this court’s jurisdiction, and requested that the action be

27

transferred back to this court. ECF No. 11. A district judge in the Central District of California

28

found that because one defendant appeared to reside in the Eastern District of California, venue
1

Case 2:20-cv-01650-AC Document 17 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 2
1

was also appropriate in this court. ECF No. 14 at 3. As a result, he found that the transfer was

2

not appropriate because plaintiff had not been given notice and an opportunity to address the issue

3

prior to the transfer and granted the request to transfer the case back to the Eastern District. Id.

4

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

5

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

6

However, the complaint in this case has already undergone a comprehensive screening by a

7

magistrate judge in the Central District of California, ECF No. 10, and the undersigned finds that

8

for the reasons set forth in the April 13, 2020 Screening Order, which is incorporated herein by

9

reference, the complaint fails to state a claim for relief and plaintiff will be given an opportunity

10

to file an amended complaint.

11

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. For the reasons set forth in the April 13, 2020 Screening Order (ECF No. 10),

13

plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, see 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 1915A, and will not be served.

15

2. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff may file an amended

16

complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules of Civil

17

Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice. The amended complaint must bear the docket

18

number assigned this case and must be labeled “First Amended Complaint.” Plaintiff must file an

19

original and two copies of the amended complaint. Failure to file an amended complaint in

20

accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

21

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the prisoner complaint

22

form used in this district and a copy of the April 13, 2020 Screening Order (ECF No. 10).

23

DATED: July 19, 2021

24
25
26
27
28
2