Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00600-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

NAVARRO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO MOVE CASE FORWARD

(ECF No. 96)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND TO 

REOPEN CASE

(ECF No. 97)

Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 

2020.

Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the 

ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing suit, 

(ECF No. 65), Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, (ECF No. 90), and Plaintiff’s motion to 

declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad faith and for sanctions, (ECF No. 

92). Only Plaintiff’s motion to compel is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 94, 95.)

During the pendency of these motions, Plaintiff filed a motion to move the case forward 

on March 23, 2023, (ECF No. 96), and a motion for change of venue and to reopen the case on 

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 98 Filed 06/12/23 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

June 7, 2023, (ECF No. 97). Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to move the 

case forward, and the deadline to do so has expired. The Court finds that a response to Plaintiff’s 

motion for change of venue and to reopen the case is not necessary. The motions are therefore 

deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). As the motions raise similar arguments, the Court will 

address them together.

In his motions, Plaintiff argues that the Court has not yet ruled on his motion to compel, 

has not addressed the motion to declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad 

faith, and the summary judgment motion has been awaiting adjudication for almost a year. (ECF 

No. 96.) Plaintiff contends that the Court has conspired with Defendants to close this case and to 

refuse to rule on his pending motions. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff requests that the Court allow the 

case to move forward, or to transfer it to another court to be reopened. (ECF Nos. 96, 97.)

With respect to Plaintiff’s request that the Court resolve the pending motion for summary 

judgment, Plaintiff is reminded that he has requested further discovery from Defendants in order 

to supplement his opposition brief before the Court issues a ruling on the summary judgment 

motion. (ECF Nos. 76, 89.) Plaintiff was then provided the opportunity to file either a motion to 

compel or a supplemental opposition, and Plaintiff opted to file a motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 

89, 90.) Before briefing on the motion to compel was completed, Plaintiff then filed a motion to 

declare Defendants’ summary judgment motion filed in bad faith, and requesting the imposition 

of sanctions. (ECF No. 92.)

Plaintiff is informed that this Court has an extremely large number of pro se prisoner civil 

rights cases pending before it, and therefore, delay is inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. 

Due to the heavy caseload, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motions to 

compel and to declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad faith are awaiting 

decision. The Court is aware of the pendency of this action and will decide the motions in due 

course. Plaintiff is advised that the filing of excessive motions regarding extraneous matters or 

requesting updates to his case are unnecessary and serve only to further consume scarce judicial 

resources. If Plaintiff continues to file such motions, it will serve only to further delay resolution 

of the pending motions in this action.

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 98 Filed 06/12/23 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

To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen his action, the request is denied as 

moot. The case remains open and pending.

With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a transfer of venue, the request is denied. “For the 

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any 

civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 

division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil action may be 

brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of 

the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of 

the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The party 

seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating that the action could 

have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); 

Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, 

Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Plaintiff has provided no argument that would support the transfer of this action to any 

other district, aside from his desire for a faster resolution of this action. This is not a sufficient 

justification to transfer this action to another district. Accordingly, venue remains appropriate in 

this district.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to move case forward, (ECF No. 96), is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue and to reopen case, (ECF No. 97), is DENIED; and

3. The pending motions in this action will be decided in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00600-KES-BAM Document 98 Filed 06/12/23 Page 3 of 3