Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01628/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01628-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA CLARA COUNTY; et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-1628 SI (pr)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER AND

DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

A. Motion For Intra-District Transfer

Defendant Bernal has moved for an intra-district transfer pursuant to Northern District

Civil Local Rule 3-2(f). He wants this action transferred to the San Jose division because a

substantial part of the events or omissions which gave rise to the claim occurred in Santa Clara

County. 

Local Rule 3-2(c) provides: “except for . . . Prisoner Petitions or Prisoner Civil Rights

Actions, upon initial filing, all civil actions and proceedings for which this district is the proper

venue shall be assigned by the Clerk to a Courthouse serving the county in which the action

arises.” Local Rule 3-2(f) allows for the transfer of an action to the correct division when the

court finds “that a civil action has not been assigned to the proper division within this district

in accordance with this rule, or that the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests

of justice will be served by transferring the action to a different division within the district,. . .

subject to the provisions of the Court’s Assignment Plan.” The assignment plan is set out in

Case 3:05-cv-01628-SI Document 24 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Including involuntarily detained persons such as Johnson in the prisoner assignment plan allows

for more efficient judicial handling of cases with common procedural concerns from litigants who are

often repeat filers. For example, Johnson has filed not only this case, but also Johnson v. Santa Clara

County, C 02-3279 SI, Johnson v. Babcock, No. C 03-235 SI, In Re. Johnson, C 03-3292 SI, Johnson

v. Hunter, C 04-775 SI, Johnson v. Hunter, C 05-2064 SI, and Johnson v. Flores, C 05-4916 SI.

2

Northern District General Order 44. General Order 44(D)(7) provides for the assignment of

“any non-capital civil action filed by a prisoner to the same Judge who was assigned any

previous actions filed on behalf of that prisoner.” 

The acts and omissions that gave rise to the complaint took place while plaintiff was in

the Santa Clara County Jail awaiting civil commitment proceedings under California's Sexually

Violent Predator Act ("SVPA"), see Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 6600 et seq. As a person awaiting

civil commitment proceedings, plaintiff technically is not a prisoner. See Page v. Torrey, 201

F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2000). However, involuntarily detained persons such as those subject to the

SVPA are treated as being included in the Northern District’s assignment plan for prisoner

cases.1 Prisoner cases are assigned district-wide and are exempted from the rule for assignment

to a division serving the county in which the action arises. 

The court also sees little convenience in reassigning this case to the San Jose division.

Because plaintiff is incarcerated, there will be few hearings in this case requiring any party to

be physically present in the courthouse and the trial (if there is one) likely will be the only

proceeding requiring any party to be physically present in the courthouse. Additionally, moving

defendant’s attorney has his office across the street from the San Francisco courthouse and more

than 40 miles away from the San Jose courthouse.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for an intra-district transfer is DENIED. (Docket

# 17.)

B. Motion For Default Judgment

Plaintiff filed a “request to enter default and or motion for default judgment” against

defendant Alfonso Fernandez. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) contemplates that a default

judgment may be sought after default has been entered against a defendant. See also New York

Case 3:05-cv-01628-SI Document 24 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) ("After defendant's default has been entered,

plaintiff may apply for a judgment based on such default. This is a default judgment."); Lee v.

Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, 139 F.R.D. 376, 380 (D. Minn. 1991).

Plaintiff's motion for default judgment was premature because default had not been entered

against defendant Fernandez. Furthermore, the motion is defective in that plaintiff failed to

serve a copy of it on defendants – his proof of service shows that it was only sent to the court.

The motion for default judgment is therefore DENIED. (Docket # 22.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01628-SI Document 24 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3