Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00576-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

RONALD JEROME LAWSON,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

USP ATWATER, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00576-EPG-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CHANGE OF VENUE

(ECF No. 18.)

I. BACKGROUND

Ronald Jerome Lawson ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971). Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action April 11, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) 

On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 5.) 

Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as 

reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3). 

On September 25, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim, 

with leave to amend. (ECF No. 13.) On October 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) The Court screened the First Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 19 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 4
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

U.S.C. § 1915A and issued an order on November 2, 2015, requiring Plaintiff to either file a 

Second Amended Complaint or notify the Court that he is willing to proceed with the claims 

found cognizable by the Court, within thirty days. (ECF No. 16.) To date, Plaintiff has not 

filed a Second Amended Complaint or notified the Court that he is willing to proceed with the 

claims found cognizable by the Court.

On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for change of venue, which is now 

before the Court. (ECF No. 18.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff brings a motion for change of venue from the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

1

 Plaintiff 

argues that venue for this case is proper in the District of Columbia because he names as 

defendant the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) at the 

central office in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff acknowledges that the “tortious conduct” at issue 

in this action did not take place in the District of Columbia, but he nonetheless seeks to hold the 

CEO liable for violation of his rights. (ECF No. 18 at 1.) Plaintiff states that the CEO did not 

commit any “tortious act, however he oversees and is responsible for . . . the conditions of the 

prison system.” Id. at 2.) 

A. Change of Venue

"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 federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than 

one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in A(1) a judicial district where any 

defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a 

 

1

Plaintiff has attached a Statement of Facts for this case to his motion for change of venue. 

(Doc. 18 at 3-8.) The Statement of Facts is not the same as that found in the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff 

may not amend the facts of the case in this manner. Local Rule 220 (“Unless prior approval to the contrary is 

obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or 

has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the 

prior or superseded pleading.”) Thus, to change the Statement of Facts, Plaintiff must file a new amended 

complaint complete in itself, which includes the new Statement of Facts.

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 19 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 4
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

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part 

of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any 

defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.@

28 U.S.C. ' 1391(b). AUpon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or 

proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the 

discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same 

district.@ 28 U.S.C. '1404(b). AA district court may order any civil action to be tried at any 

place within the division in which it is pending.@ 28 U.S.C. '1404(c).

Discussion

Plaintiff=s claims in the First Amended Complaint, brought pursuant to Bivens, stem 

from events that allegedly occurred at the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Atwater, 

California, which is located within the boundaries of the Eastern District of California. 

Plaintiff names as defendants Captain Garcia, Lieutenant Fenton, Lieutenant Lepe, and Officer 

Alvarado, who were all employed by the BOP at USP-Atwater at the time of the events at 

issue, and Ramon Brown, who was an inmate at USP-Atwater at the time of the events at issue.

Plaintiff also includes “staff officials [of the] Department of Justice, et al., Federal Bureau of 

Prisons, and Atwater – United States Penitentiary” in his list of defendants on the face page of 

the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 14 at 1.) However, Plaintiff does not name the CEO 

of the BOP in Washington, D.C. as a defendant in the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff was advised in the screening order issued on November 2, 2015, that under the 

doctrine of sovereign immunity, “if a prisoner in a BOP facility alleges a constitutional 

deprivation, his only remedy lies against the offending individual officer.” (ECF No. 16 at 

6:10-11 (citing see Corr. Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 62 (2001)). Thus, to the extent 

that Plaintiff seeks to hold the CEO of the BOP liable for violation of Plaintiff’s rights merely 

because the CEO oversees and is responsible for the conditions of the prison system, Plaintiff 

may not do so in this Bivens action. 

Because all of the individual officers named as defendants in the First Amended 

Complaint reside in the Eastern District of California, and all of the events giving rise to 

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 19 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Plaintiff=s claims occurred in the Eastern District of California, venue for this action is proper 

only in the Eastern District of California, and this action could not have been brought in any 

other district. Therefore, the Court may not transfer this case to the District of Columbia, and 

Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for change 

of venue, filed on November 9, 2015, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00576-EPG Document 19 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 4