Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01928/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01928-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSS RABUCK,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLIFF ALLENBY, Director of

California Department of State

Hospitals, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. SACV 14-1737

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

TRANSFERRED TO EASTERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

On October 30, 2014, plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and is currently a

civil detainee at the Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually

Violent Predator Act (“SVPA”),1 filed a Motion to File Civil Rights Complaint In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”) and lodged a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Complaint”) in the Central District of California (“CDCA”).

Federal law provides that a civil action may be brought in: (1) a judicial

district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in

which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the

1Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 6600, et seq.

Case 1:14-cv-01928-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 11/04/14 Page 1 of 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

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

property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in

which the action may otherwise be brought, as provided above, any judicial district

in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to

such action. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a case is filed in the wrong district or

division, the district court in which such case is filed “shall dismiss, or if it be in

the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A district court may also transfer any

civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought “[f]or

the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice[.]” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). The Court has authority on its own motion to decide the venue issue

and to dismiss or transfer the action before a responsive pleading is filed. See

Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff names as defendants multiple officials with the Coalinga State

Hospital (Complaint at 1), which is located in Coalinga, California, in Fresno

County, within the boundaries of the Eastern District of California (“EDCA”). 

28 U.S.C. § 84(b). The Complaint does not allege that any defendant resides in the

CDCA. The Complaint, construed liberally, appears to allege that defendants

deprived plaintiff of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by

(1) subjecting him to an irrational assessment method when determining that

plaintiff was prohibited from taking part in outpatient treatment; (2) depriving him

of adequate treatment; (3) depriving him of the benefit of outpatient treatment

afforded to similarly situated individuals; and (4) subjecting him to excessively

restrictive conditions. (Complaint at 9-10). Plaintiff allegedly suffered the

foregoing deprivations while detained at Coalinga State Hospital (Complaint at 2,

9-10) – a facility that, again, is located within the boundaries of the EDCA. 

28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

///

2

Case 1:14-cv-01928-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 11/04/14 Page 2 of 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

Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in the CDCA because he formerly

resided in the CDCA and was committed under the SVPA in Orange County

Superior Court, which is within the CDCA. (Complaint at 1-2). However, in light

of the location of the defendants and the apparent fact that the substantial part of

the events giving rise to plaintiff’s claims actually occurred in the EDCA and not in

the CDCA, it appears that venue is proper in the EDCA, not the CDCA. 

Alternatively, even assuming venue is proper in both the CDCA and the EDCA, it

appears that for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, it would be in the

interest of justice to transfer this matter to the EDCA where at least most of the

parties are currently located.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that if plaintiff objects to the transfer of this

action to the United States District Court for the EDCA, he shall file any such

objections within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. The objections shall

show cause, if any, why this action should not be transferred to the EDCA on the

grounds specified above. The failure timely to file any such objections will be

construed as consent to the transfer of this action to the EDCA. 

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2014

_______________/s/_____________________

Honorable Jacqueline Chooljian

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:14-cv-01928-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 11/04/14 Page 3 of 3