Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00165/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00165-2/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

JOSE LUIS MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

GREG LEWIS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-00165-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

CHANGE OF VENUE

(Doc. 8.)

I. BACKGROUND

Jose Luis Morales ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing 

this action on February 6, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On March 3, 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. (Doc. 4.) 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).

Case 1:14-cv-00165-GSA Document 9 Filed 01/16/15 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

The court screened the Complaint and issued an order on November 24, 2014, 

dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim and requiring Plaintiff to file an amended 

complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 7.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

change of venue, which is now before the court. (Doc. 8.)

II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff brings a motion for change of venue from the Eastern District of California to 

the Northern District of California, because some of his claims in the Complaint arose from 

events occurring in the Northern District. Plaintiff asserts that his remaining claims, against 

defendants residing in the Eastern District, are insufficient for Plaintiff to move forward. 

Plaintiff requests the court to transfer this case to the Northern District, where he will amend 

the complaint.

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 

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). 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.3d 495, 

498 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Discussion

Plaintiff=s claims in the Complaint stem from events that occurred at PBSP in Crescent 

City, California, and at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) in Delano, California. PBSP is 

located within the boundaries of the Northern District of California, and KVSP is located 

within the boundaries of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, venue for Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:14-cv-00165-GSA Document 9 Filed 01/16/15 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

claims arising at PBSP is proper in the Northern District, while venue for the claims arising at 

KVSP is proper in the Eastern District of California.

1

 Thus, the claims in this action arising at 

PBSP could have been brought in the Northern District of California.

The court’s November 24, 2014 order dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety for 

failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff now seeks to proceed at the 

Northern District of California with his claims arising there. In light of the fact that Plaintiff’s 

entire Complaint has been dismissed by this court, Plaintiff’s remedy at this stage of the 

proceedings is to file a new case at the Northern District which includes only the claims arising 

in the Northern District. Plaintiff was advised in the court’s order of November 24, 2014 that 

his claims against defendants employed by the CDCR at PBSP should be filed in the U. S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California. (Id. at 2 n. 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion for change of venue shall be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

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

of venue, filed on December 22, 2014, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

In fact, the court’s order of November 24, 2014, advised Plaintiff that his claims against 

defendants employed by the CDCR at PBSP should be filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California. (Doc. 7 at 2 n. 2.)

Case 1:14-cv-00165-GSA Document 9 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3