Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00419/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00419-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

MARCIA STEVENSON-BRIDGES, et 

al.,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 19-00419 BLF (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in 

Tehachapi, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 

two individuals. (Docket No. 1.) The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend 

for Plaintiff to attempt to correct several deficiencies. (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff has 

filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 14.) 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review 

 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 16 Filed 11/15/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 

construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims 

The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend for the following 

three deficiencies: (1) it was unclear whether the two named individuals, Monee Stevenson 

and Marcia Stevenson-Bridges, were persons acting under the color of state law or private 

individuals; (2) it was unclear whether venue was proper in this district because there was 

no information with respect to where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the 

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; and (3) whether the claim for 

damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since it appeared Plaintiff 

had recently suffered a conviction out of Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Docket 

No. 10 at 2-3.) In the amended complaint, there are indications that venue in this district is 

not proper as Plaintiff states that the alleged violation occurred in “County Jail – Los 

Angeles.” (Docket No. 14 at 1-4.) Furthermore, under “Claim 1,” Plaintiff asserts “Sixth 

Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel” and then proceeds to give a detailed 

narrative of his actions in Los Angeles on November 8, 2004, under “supporting facts.” 

(Id. at 6-9.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the.... claim is 

and the grounds upon which it rests.”’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 16 Filed 11/15/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553-56, (2007) 

(citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff’s lengthy narrative contains no facts involving any of 

the named defendants to give them notice of his claim against them, and therefore fails to 

comply with Rule 8(a)(2). Although this failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) is grounds for 

dismissal of the entire action, see McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177, 1178-79 (9th 

Cir. 1996), in the interest of justice, the Court will transfer the action to the district with 

proper venue rather than have Plaintiff suffer a dismissal.

Because the relevant facts indicate that the acts complained of occurred in Los 

Angeles County, which lies within the venue of the Western Division of the Central 

District of California, see 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2), venue properly lies in that district and not 

in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 

Western Division of the Central District of California in Los Angeles. See 28 U.S.C. § 

84(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: _November 15, 2019_ ________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 

United States District Judge 

Order of Transfer 

PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\00419Favor_transfer 

Case 5:19-cv-00419-BLF Document 16 Filed 11/15/19 Page 3 of 3