(PC) Smith v. Municipality of Fresno County et al
Filing
77
ORDER DENYING 75 Motion for Change of Venue to District of Oregon; ORDER Transferring Case to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/27/2021. New Case Number 2:21-cv-1992 KMJ-AC. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GARY PAUL SMITH,
11
Plaintiff,
12
Case No. 1:19-cv-00651-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE TO DISTRICT OF OREGON
v.
(ECF No. 75)
13
BROCKWAY, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
Plaintiff Gary Paul Smith is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
17
18
this civil rights action. This case proceeds against Defendants Bishop and Brockway concerning
19
Plaintiff’s claims that they were deliberately indifferent to his safety. Before the Court is
20
Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue to the United States District Court for the District of
21
Oregon, which the Court will deny for the reasons discussed below.1 (ECF No. 75). However,
22
upon review of Plaintiff’s surviving claims, the Court determines that it is proper to transfer this
23
case to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.
24
Plaintiff’s motion is a nondispositive matter that this Court may rule on by order. Pavao v.
Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1241 n.1 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (“Because an order
transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the merits of the case, it is a
nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A).”).
1
25
26
27
28
1
1
I.
2
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
On October 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue. (ECF No. 75). This
3
seven-page filing raises various issues. However, Plaintiff’s predominant request is for the case to
4
be transferred to the District of Oregon because he believes that he will not receive a fair trial
5
before this Court. (Id. at 1) (“Also as important his right to change of [venue.] As Court knows
6
there’s absolutely NO chance of Plaintiff receiving a fair & just trial anywhere in this Court’s
7
jurisdiction. There-fore this State. . . . Plaintiff sent DAG Court 9th Circuit & United States
8
Supreme Court change of [venue] And the undisputable fact. Plaintiff has already chose Oregon. .
9
. .”).
10
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
11
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or
12
to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving
13
party bears the burden of showing the balance of conveniences favors the transfer. See
14
Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979); Allstar Mktg.
15
Grp., LLC v. Your Store Online, LLC, 666 F. Supp. 2d 1109, 1131 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (“The burden
16
is on the moving party to establish that a transfer will allow a case to proceed more conveniently
17
and better serve the interests of justice.”).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In considering a motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a), the court may weigh a number
of factors, including:
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed; (2)
the state that is most familiar with the governing law; (3) the plaintiff's choice of
forum; (4) the respective parties’ contacts with the forum; (5) the contacts relating
to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum; (6) the differences in the
costs of litigation in the two forums; (7) the availability of compulsory process to
compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; and, (8) the ease of access to
sources of proof.
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).
Here, Plaintiff has not satisfied the standards of § 1404(a). Plaintiff has made no argument
showing that the above factors weigh in favor of transferring this case to the District of Oregon.
Rather, the only argument for a change of venue that Plaintiff offers is his unsupported allegation
28
2
1
that he will not receive a fair trial before this Court. Such a conclusory assertion does not meet
2
Plaintiff’s burden of establishing grounds for a change a venue.
3
II.
TRANSFER TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION
4
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 14, 2019, naming Defendants, such as Fresno County,
5
located within the venue assigned to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District. See Local Rule
6
120(d) (listing actions arising in Fresno County as within the venue of the Fresno Division); (ECF
7
No. 1, p. 1). However, Plaintiff has since amended his complaint multiple times, with the
8
operative complaint being Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. (ECF No. 41).
9
Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case, this case now proceeds only on
10
Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants Bishop and Brockway were deliberately indifferent to his
11
safety. (See ECF Nos. 41; 54, 55). These claims arise out of Mule Creek State Prison in Ione,
12
California, where Defendants Bishop and Brockway were correctional officers at the time of the
13
incident giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. (ECF No. 41, p. 2). Ione, California is located within
14
Amador County. Under Local Rule 120(d), actions arising in Amador County are properly
15
commenced in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a
16
civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion,
17
be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, because the surviving claims in this case concern
18
events arising within the Sacramento Division, this action will be transferred to that Division.
19
III.
20
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
ORDER
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue to the District of Oregon is denied (ECF No.
21
22
75);
23
2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
24
California sitting in Sacramento; and
25
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
\\\
3
1
3. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be
2
filed at:
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 27, 2021
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?