Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02717/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02717-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 In this regard, Defendants’ counsel represented at oral argument that service would

be properly effectuated by mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to the Attorney

General’s Office in Sacramento and the County Defendants would accept service by mailing

a copy of the summons and complaint to County counsel’s office. Only individual defendant

Michael Wilkes, no longer employed by the County, will have to be served individually by a

process server.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE J. PRIEST,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, OF THE COUNTY OF EL

DORADO, ET AL,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02717 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE AND

EXTENDING TIME TO EFFECT

PROPER SERVICE

Now before the Court is the motion filed by Defendants Government of the State of

California, Government of the County of El Dorado, Superior Court Judges Phimister, Daniel

Proud, District Attorney Gary Lacy, Paul Sutherland, Sheriff Wilkes, Sgt. Hammitt, and Does 1-

25 (collectively, “Defendants”) to dismiss for lack of proper service and to transfer venue to the

Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Having carefully reviewed the

parties’ papers and considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer venue and extends the

time for an additional 30 days for Plaintiff to effect proper service on Defendants.1

Case 3:05-cv-02717-JSW Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

In this regard, the Court takes judicial notice of the documents attached to the

Declaration of Franklin G. Gumpert as they are capable of accurate and ready determination

by resort to resources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. See Fed. R. Evid.

201. 

2

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a resident of Placerville, California. (See Complaint.) 

Defendants are all residents or current or past employees in the County of El Dorado. 

(See Declaration of Gary Lacy at 1; Declaration of Angela Oliver at 1; Declaration of Jeff Neves

at 1; Declaration of Todd Hammitt at 1; Declaration of Paul Sutherland at 1; Declaration of

Michael Wilkes at 1; Declaration of Aimee Lamoureaux at 1.) 

Plaintiff alleges that he was the subject of a conspiracy to harm him based upon his

arrest, the pressing of criminal charges, and ultimately his criminal trial in the El Dorado County

Superior Court.2 All of the actions about which Plaintiff complains took place in El Dorado

County, in the Eastern District of California. 

ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Transfer Venue.

Defendants seek to have the Court transfer this action to the Eastern District of

California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any

district where the case could have been filed originally for the convenience of the parties and

witnesses and in the interest of justice. 

A district court has discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an

individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v.

Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). A motion to transfer venue under § 1404(a) requires the

court to weigh multiple factors to determine whether transfer is appropriate in a particular case. 

For example, the court may consider: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of

witnesses and the parties; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the applicable law; (4) the ease of

access to evidence; and (5) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Gulf

Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

498-99 (9th Cir. 2000). As the moving party, Defendants bear the burden of showing that the

Case 3:05-cv-02717-JSW Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

3

inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994). If the balance of convenience weighs strongly

in favor of transfer, the Court may accord less deference to a plaintiff’s chosen forum. Id.

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs could have sued Defendants in the Eastern District of

California. Accordingly, the Court weighs the relevant competing factors to determine which

forum is appropriate under the circumstances. 

1. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.

The deference accorded to a plaintiff’s chosen forum should be balanced against both the

extent of a defendant’s contacts with the chosen forum and a plaintiff’s contacts, including those

relating to a plaintiff’s cause of action. Pacific Car and Foundry Co. v. Pence, 403 F.2d 949,

954 (9th Cir. 1968). “If the operative facts have not occurred within the forum of original

selection and that forum has no particular interest in the parties or the subject matter, [a]

plaintiff’s choice is only entitled to minimal consideration.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff is a resident of Placerville, California. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed

suit in the Eastern District over the same or similar facts. There is no particular cause of action

or allegation giving rise to the claims in the complaint which occurred in this district. The

complaint does not allege that acts in this district gave rise to the claims.

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s choice of forum, although entitled to

some deference, does not weigh against transfer in this matter.

2. Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties.

In addition to considering the Plaintiff’s choice of forum, the Court will consider the

relative convenience to all the parties involved in the lawsuit of the competing forums when

deciding a motion to transfer. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. 

The convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor in resolving a motion to

transfer. The trial court looks at who the witnesses are, where they are located, and the

relevance of their testimony. A.J. Industries, Inc. v. United States District Court, 503 F.3d 384,

389 (9th Cir. 1974). The Plaintiff and all of the defendants sued in this matter reside in the

Case 3:05-cv-02717-JSW Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

4

Eastern District of California. The convenience of the witnesses and parties is best served by

transfer to that district. 

3. Familiarity of the Forum With the Applicable Law.

Because neither party has demonstrated that either forum would be more familiar with

the law involved, the Court finds this factor to be neutral.

4. Ease of Access to Evidence.

Because all of the events about which Plaintiff complains took place within the Eastern

District and all parties and witnesses reside there, it is apparent that the majority of the evidence

is located within the Eastern District of California. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of

transfer.

5. Relative Congestion.

Because neither party has demonstrated that either forum would be less congested, the

Court finds this factor to be neutral.

B. Motion to Dismiss for Insufficiency of Service.

Proper service has yet to be effectuated on all defendants. Because Plaintiff is appearing

pro se and has made good faith attempts at service, the Court will extend the period for Plaintiff

to effect proper service on defendants for an additional 30 days. Defendants may renew their

motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of service in the Eastern District Court if Plaintiff has

failed to remedy the defects in service within 30 days of this Order.

CONCLUSION

Due to the convenience of the witnesses and the access to evidence, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion to transfer to the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case, forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02717-JSW Document 21 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 4