Poslof v. Martel et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 04/18/18 ORDERING CASE TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. (Plummer, M) [Transferred from California Eastern on 4/19/2018.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:18-cv-0587-EFB P

v.

ORDER

MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges three claims: (1) that while housed at R.J. Donovan Correctional

19

Facility, he became fearful and suicidal upon learning that protective custody inmates like

20

himself, would be integrated with general population inmates, ECF No. 1 at 3; (2) that pursuant to

21

a suicide prevention order, he was sent to Lancaster State Prison, but then returned to R.J.

22

Donovan despite his claims that he would commit suicide there, id. at 5; and (3) that staff at R.J.

23

Donovan failed to follow suicide prevention procedures and denied plaintiff adequate medical

24

care following his attempted suicide upon his return, id. at 4. As for defendants, plaintiff names

25

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Michael Martel (warden of the

26

California Health Care Facility), and Does 1 to 100 (identified as medical staff and employees of

27

R.J. Donovan). Id. at 2.

28

/////
1

1

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial

2

district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the

3

district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

4

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action

5

is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in

6

this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal

7

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

8

In this case, defendants CDCR and Warden Martel are located in this district. However,

9

none of the claims arose in this district. Two of the three claims arose at R.J. Donovan, which is

10

in the Southern District of California. If and when the R.J. Donovan “Doe” defendants are

11

identified, the defendants, and presumably most of the witnesses, will be located in that district.

12

Therefore, the court finds that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of

13

justice are better served by transferring this action to the United States District Court for the

14

Southern District of California.

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Southern

16

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

17

Dated: April 18, 2018.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2