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)

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