Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01077-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

UNION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS

AND DENTISTS,

NO. CIV. S 05-1077 MCE DAD

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; JEANNE WOODFORD;

RENEE KANAN, M.D.; DOES thru

XX, inclusive,

Respondents.

----oo0oo----

This case was instituted on April 26, 2005 by Petitioner

Union of American Physicians and Dentists (“Petitioner”) as a

Petition for Writ of Mandate, pursuant to California Code of

Civil Procedure § 1085, in the Superior Court of the State of

California in and for the County of Sacramento. The matter was

removed by Respondents to this Court on May 27, 2005 on grounds

that it arose under the Eighth Amendment of the United States

Constitution. According to Respondents, the physician

certification requirements opposed by Petitioner in the present

Case 2:05-cv-01077-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

action were prompted by a September 17, 2004 Order of the

Northern District, in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, et al. (Case No.

C-01-1351 T.E.H.), which imposed additional physician competency

requirements in order to remedy potential Eighth Amendment

violations pertaining to inadequate patient care and staffing at

California Department of Corrections (“CDC”) facilities. 

Respondents now move to transfer the case now pending in

this Court to the Northern District on grounds that the

requirements challenged by Petitioner were in fact ordered by the

Northern District in the Plata case, and that both cases share

common issues pertaining to the competency of CDC physicians. 

Respondents consequently ask that venue be transferred pursuant

to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows for the

transfer of substantially similar actions in the interest of

justice. See, e.g., Rabbi Jacob Joseph School v. Province of

Mendoza, 342 F. Supp. 2d 124, 130-31 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (transfer

under § 1404(a) proper where duplicative action involving same

basic claim would waste judicial resources and create the

potential for inconsistent results).

Significantly, counsel for Petitioner has not opposed the

instant request for transfer, and indeed has filed a joinder to

Respondents’ transfer request, stating that “judicial economy

would strong be served by granting [Respondents’] motion to

transfer this action to the Northern District before Judge

Henderson, who has already been addressing at length issues

concerning [Respondent] CDC’s provision of prison health

services.” (Petitioner’s July 18, 2005 Joinder in Motion to

Transfer).

Case 2:05-cv-01077-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Given Petitioner’s non-opposition to Respondents’ transfer

request, and good cause appearing therefor, the above-captioned

case is hereby transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01077-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 09/06/05 Page 3 of 3