Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00240-6/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Rondel Delbert Gardner is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a change of venue and objection to the 

order of intradistrict transfer from Sacramento, filed March 9, 2020.

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Objection to Order of Intradistrict Transfer

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action 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; 

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is 

no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district 

RONDEL DELBERT GARDNER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GAVIN NEWSOM, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00240-SAB (PC)

ORDER OVERULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION TO ORDER OF INTRADISTRICT 

TRANSFER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

[ECF No. 27]

Case 1:20-cv-00240-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 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

in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1391. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong 

district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); see also Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 

1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective venue sua sponte); Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 

1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 1991) (courts have broad discretion regarding severance). 

In addition, pursuant to Rule 120(f) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, a 

civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be 

transferred to another venue within the district. Local Rule 120(f). 

The original complaint was filed in the Sacramento Division of this Court. On April 30, 2019, 

the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint, found that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims for 

relief, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff filed a first 

amended complaint on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 11.) On October 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Kendall 

J. Newman appointed counsel Bryan L. Hawkins and Sarah E. Kozal for the limited purpose of filing a 

second amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 

2020. (ECF No. 21.) On this same date, counsel for Plaintiff was terminated. 

On February 8, 2020, the action was transferred to this Court because the allegations presented 

in the second amended complaint took place in the Kings County which is part of the Fresno Division 

of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 22.) 

Plaintiff contends that he is now housed in Los Angeles County and he objects to the change of 

venue at this point in the action. 

The decision to transfer venue of a civil action under § 1404(a) lies soundly within the 

discretion of the trial court. Jones v. GNC Franchising Inc., 211 F.2d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Because venue for the alleged violations which took place in Kings County lies in the Fresno Division 

of the Eastern District of California and not Sacramento, the action was properly transferred to this 

Court, and the interests of justice counsel in favor of retaining this action. Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

objection to the transfer is overruled. 

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-00240-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 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

B. Motion for Transfer of Venue

Plaintiff seeks a change of venue to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California because he is currently housed in Los Angeles County. 

“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.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). The party moving to transfer venue under section 1404(a) bears the burden of establishing 

the factors in favor of transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising Inc., 211 F.2d at 499 . Under this section, 

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). 

Here, this action could not have been originally brought in the Sacramento Division or the 

Central District, as all Defendants are located and the incidents giving rise to the claims occurred, in 

the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 21.) Accordingly, venue is proper in the Fresno Division 

and Plaintiff has failed to raise any grounds on which venue would be proper in the Sacramento 

Division or in the Central District of California. 

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s objection to the order of intradistrict transfer is overruled; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for transfer of venue is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00240-DAD-SAB Document 28 Filed 03/12/20 Page 3 of 3