Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00868/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00868-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)

---

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 seeks a change in venue pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 397, 

asserting that the action may be moved in situations where there is reason to believe an impartial trial 

may not be had in the county where the action is filed. (Doc. 33 at 2) Likewise, he cites California 

Code of Civil Procedure § 394 and argues that an action for negligence against a county should not be 

tried in that county. Id. Notably, however, this section permits the trial to occur in the defendant 

county. Id. [“[A]ny action or proceeding against the . . . county . . . for injury occurring within the . . .

county . . . to person or property or person and property caused by the negligence or alleged negligence 

of the. . . county . . . or its agents or employees, shall be tried in that county . . .”] Even still, Plaintiff’s 

complaint does not raise a negligence claim. (Doc. 22; Doc. 37)

More importantly, generally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings in 

federal court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 1. Thus, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a change in venue is appropriate 

under federal law, which provides that “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other 

RICHARD WILLIFORD, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

PHILLIP HALL,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00868 - KJM - JLT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

A CHANGE IN VENUE

(Doc. 33)

Case 1:15-cv-00868-KJM-JLT Document 38 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
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

district or division where it might have been brought” for the convenience of parties and witness, and in 

the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Moreover, the matter is assigned a District Judge who 

presides in Sacramento, which dictates that any trial in this matter will occur in Sacramento. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a change in venue (Doc. 

33) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00868-KJM-JLT Document 38 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2