Hill v. Newsom et al

Filing 11

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 13, 2023. (mll, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NATHAN HILL, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 23-cv-01997-JST ORDER OF TRANSFER v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at California State Prison – Los Angeles County in Los 14 Angeles, California, has filed this action against the following defendants: California Governor 15 Newsom, the State of California, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations 16 (“CDCR”) Secretary Jeff Macomber, Los Angeles County Court House Corporation, the Pasadena 17 Police Department, the Glendale Police Department, the Inmate Welfare Fund, CEO of the Bank 18 of America and the Inmate Welfare Fund Brian Moynthan, the arresting agency of each plaintiff, 19 every governor of California for the last 30 years, and every secretary of the CDCR for the last 30 20 years. It appears that Plaintiff seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all current and former 21 prisoners. Plaintiff’s allegations are sprawling and numerous, and allege a grand conspiracy 22 amongst all defendants against all prisoners throughout the state of California. Plaintiff has not 23 identified any co-plaintiffs and the complaint is not signed by any potential co-plaintiffs. Plaintiff 24 does not identify any specific violation of his constitutional or federal statutory rights that 25 happened to him in this district. 26 Venue generally is proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all 27 defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the 28 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the 1 subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, 2 if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In 3 determining the appropriate venue, the Court does not consider the claims of the alleged co- 4 plaintiffs because it is unclear who these co-plaintiffs are and whether they have consented to the 5 filing of this action. Here, with respect to the alleged deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional or 6 federal statutory rights, no specific events occurred in the Northern District of California and none 7 of the defendants appear to reside in this district. Plaintiff currently is housed in Los Angeles 8 County, and has named numerous agencies located in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County 9 lies within the venue of the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Venue therefore 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 properly lies in the Central District of California. See id. § 1391(b). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1406(a), this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central 13 District of California. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 13, 2023 ______________________________________ JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?