Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02753-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS RYLES,

Plaintiff,

vs.

T. FELKER, et al.,

Defendants. 

________________________________/

2:07-cv-02753-RCT

ORDER

Plaintiff Ryles has requested to have this case transferred to the Southern District of

California (#49). The Court interprets this as a motion for a change of venue pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides, "[f]or 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."

A civil action filed in federal court pursuant to federal question jurisdiction and brought

against only one defendant may be brought in (1) the judicial district where the defendant

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

to the claim occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). All of the events alleged in the Amended

Complaint occurred at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California, which is located in

the Eastern District of California. At the time the Amended Complaint was filed, Defendant

Patton worked at High Desert State Prison and appears to have lived in the District as well. 

Thus, the Eastern District of California is the only district in which Plaintiff could have filed his

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 50 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 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

-2-

claim and any transfer would be improper under § 1404(a). See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (stating

that a civil action may be transferred only to a district in which "it might have been brought"). 

Furthermore, any witnesses to the events at issue in this case would likely be located in the

Eastern District.

The Court understands that travel to the Eastern District in inconvenient for Plaintiff,

who has recently been released from prison in San Diego, California. However, this is the

proper district for the case. The Motion for Change of Venue (#49) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 20th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Richard C. Tallman 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

Sitting by designation

Case 2:07-cv-02753-RCT Document 50 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2