Campbell v. Portillo et al

Filing 90

ORDER that ECF No. 87 Motion to Change Venue is denied. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

______________________________________
)
)
DAMON LAMAR CAMPBELL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MANUEL PORTILLO et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

3:11-cv-00532-RCJ-VPC
ORDER

12
13

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. He sued

14

Defendants in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for various civil rights violations. The Court

15

permitted excessive force and deliberate indifference claims under the Eighth Amendment to

16

proceed upon screening and later adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to

17

grant summary judgment to Defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed only as to the excessive

18

force claim, which remains for trial. Plaintiff now asks the Court to transfer venue to the

19

unofficial southern division in Las Vegas for the convenience of parties and witnesses under 28

20

U.S.C. § 1404(a).

21

The case concerns an incident at High Desert State Prison (“HDSP”) in Indian Springs,

22

which is much closer to Las Vegas than to Reno. Plaintiff was incarcerated at Northern Nevada

23

Correctional Center in Carson City (which is much closer to Reno than to Las Vegas) when he

24
1 of 3

1

filed the Complaint, however, which is why the case was assigned to the unofficial northern

2

division in Reno. He has since been transferred back to HDSP. Plaintiff argues that Defendants

3

were employed at HDSP at the time of the incident and that some of them still reside in southern

4

Nevada.
Defendants respond that Plaintiff was transferred back to the unofficial southern division

5
6

(at HDSP) over three years ago in October 2014. In this case, Plaintiff and Defendants constitute

7

all (or nearly all) of the witnesses. No Defendant desires transfer for convenience’s sake, and the

8

one Defendant who now resides in California would be equally inconvenienced by travel to Las

9

Vegas or Reno. Plaintiff himself will not be inconvenienced. He has no freedom to be interfered

10

with, and Defendants disclaim any inconvenience to themselves from the task of transferring

11

him.

12

Plaintiff replies that Defendants have failed to show that they will be inconvenienced or

13

prejudiced by trial in Las Vegas. But it is Plaintiff who asks the Court to change the status quo,

14

and he therefore has the burden of showing that it will be more convenient for Defendants,

15

himself, and any other witnesses to hold the trial in Las Vegas. See, e.g., Decker Coal v.

16

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). Defendants disclaim any

17

inconvenience from trial in Reno. As the Court has noted, Plaintiff will not be meaningfully

18

inconvenienced by trial in Reno. In either location, he will likely be held in a local county jail

19

during trial. Plaintiff identifies no other witnesses who would be inconvenienced by a trial in

20

Reno. Finally, convenience of counsel is irrelevant under § 1404(a). See, e.g., In re Volkswagen

21

AG, 371 F.3d 201, 206 (5th Cir. 2004); Solomon v. Cont’l Am. Life Ins. Co., 472 F.2d 1043, 1047

22

(3rd Cir. 1973) (citing Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Igoe, 220 F.2d 299, 304 (7th

23

Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 822 (1955)).

24
2 of 3

CONCLUSION

1
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 87) is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated this 29th16, 2018.
January day of December, 2017.

5
6

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3 of 3