Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-01786-0/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

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

CONFESSOR MONTALVO,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CDCR PERSONNEL,

 Defendants.

1:16-cv-01078-GSA-PC

ORDER SEVERING CLAIMS FOR LACK 

OF VENUE AND TRANSFERRING 

SEVERED CLAIMS TO PROPER COURTS 

FOR ADJUDICATION

ORDER FOR CLERK’S OFFICE TO SEND 

COPIES TO PROPER COURTS

I. BACKGROUND

Confessor Montalvo (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 26, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed the Complaint commencing this action, which is now before the court for screening. 

(ECF No. 1.) 

On August 15, 2016, 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. (ECF No. 6.) 

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 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 9 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 5
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

II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 

legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 

paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or 

appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are 

not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff’s allegations are 

taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart 

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. 

Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as 

true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting 

this plausibility standard. Id. 

III. VENUE

The venue for some of Plaintiff’s claims is not proper in this court, and those claims 

shall be severed from the Complaint and transferred to the proper courts.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action 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 events or omissions giving 

rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is 

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 9 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 5
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

situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 

this section, 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. In the interest of justice, a federal 

court may transfer a complaint filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. '

1406(a); also see Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise 

defective venue sua sponte); see also Davis v. Mason County, 927 F.2d 1473, 1479 (9th Cir. 

1991) (courts have broad discretion regarding severance). 

In addition, pursuant to Rule 120(f) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of 

California, a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s 

own motion, be transferred to another venue within the district. L.R. 120(f).

Discussion

Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California. 

The events at issue in the Complaint allegedly occurred at three state prisons, (1) High Desert 

State Prison (HDSP)1in Susanville, California, (2) Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP)2in 

Crescent City, California, and (3) Corcoran State Prison (CSP)3in Corcoran, California, when 

Plaintiff was incarcerated at those institutions in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Venue is not proper in this court for Plaintiff’s claims arising out of events at PBSP and 

HDSP, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. PBSP is in Crescent City, Del 

Norte County, California, which is located in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California. HDSP is in Susanville, Lassen County, California, which is located in 

 

1 For claims arising at HDSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Sergeant 

G. Harrison, Sergeant. B. Wheeler, Correctional Officer W. Jones, IGI B. Fleming, S&E M. Marin, IGI C/O N. 

Smith, Special Agent J.A. Harrison, and Special Agent P.P. Sprahue. 

2

For claims arising at PBSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Deputy 

Director G. Giurbino, Director S. Hubbard, CCII J. Ryan, Z. Razavi (Ph.D.), Special Agent M. Ruff, Chief D. 

Rothchild, and CSR B. Lee.

3

For claims arising at CSP, it appears that Plaintiff names the following defendants: Captain R. 

Chavez, CCI T. Galaviz, Lieutenant S. Pina, CCII C. Villarrial, Chief Deputy Warden J. D. Smith, Sergeant N. 

Holland, Social Worker D. Prince, Captain R. Broomfield, and CCII T. Campbell. 

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 9 Filed 03/27/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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 Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. 

Therefore, the court shall sever Plaintiff’s claims arising at PBSP and HDSP from the 

Complaint and transfer those claims to the proper courts. Venue for Plaintiff’s claims arising 

out of events at CSP is proper in this court, and those claims shall proceed in this action.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The court finds that venue is not proper in this court for Plaintiff’s claims arising at 

PBSP and HDSP, and those claims may not be pursued in this action. Therefore, the court shall 

sever those claims from the Complaint and transfer them to the proper courts for adjudication. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims arising at High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California,

are severed from this action for lack of venue and transferred to the Sacramento 

Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California;

2. The Clerk=s Office shall forward to the Sacramento Division of United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California:

(1) a copy of this order, and

(2) a copy of the Complaint filed in this action on January 17, 2017 (ECF 

No. 1);

3. Plaintiff’s claims arising at Pelican Bay State Prison in Crescent City, 

California, are severed from this action for lack of venue and transferred to the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California;

4. The Clerk=s Office shall forward to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California:

(1) a copy of this order, and

(2) a copy of the Complaint filed in this action on January 17, 2017 (ECF 

No. 1);

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 9 Filed 03/27/17 Page 4 of 5
5

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

5. This case shall proceed with Plaintiff’s claims arising at Corcoran State Prison; 

and

6. By separate order, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended 

complaint in this case as to the Corcoran State Prison claims only.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:17-cv-01786-HRL Document 9 Filed 03/27/17 Page 5 of 5