Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02214/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02214-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILLIAM VAN BATENBURG,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL PARAMO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-06810-WHO (PR) 

ORDER REOPENING ACTION;

ORDER OF TRANSFER

This federal civil rights action was dismissed because plaintiff William Van 

Batenburg failed to comply with the Court’s order to file a complete application to proceed 

in forma pauperis (“IFP”) or pay the filing fee of $400.00. Since then, Van Batenburg has 

perfected his IFP application. Accordingly, the action is REOPENED. The judgment 

(Dkt. No. 9) and the order of dismissal (Dkt. No. 8) are VACATED. 

The bulk of Van Batenburg’s allegations are based on events that occurred at the 

R. J. Donovan Correction Facility, which lies in the Southern District of California. 

Accordingly, this action is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of California wherein 

venue properly lies because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 

claims occurred, and the named defendants reside, in the Southern District. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 84(d), 1391(b), and 1406(a). The Clerk shall transfer this action forthwith. 

The few claims that are based on events that occurred in the Northern District are 

DISMISSED without prejudice to Van Batenburg filing a separate civil rights action in this 

district. 

Case 3:17-cv-02214-BAS-KSC Document 16 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Because Van Batenburg seeks relief from his jailors in the Southern District, his 

claims properly belong there. So does the decision of whether to appoint counsel. 

Consideration of the latter decision may include Van Batenburg’s disabilities and the facts 

of the case. 

According to the complaint, Van Batenburg, who is in a wheelchair and is blind in 

one eye, was “sexually abused” by his cellmate in 2008. (Compl. at 3.) He alleges that 

since that incident, he has experienced “a very grievous state of anxiety and fear toward 

every cell mate Petitioner would then receive.” (Id. at 4.) He further alleges that in 2010, 

Van Batenburg was attacked by another cellmate. (Id. at 4-5.) From this incident, he 

“developed a strong psychological fear and PTSD.” (Id. at 5.) Since the attacks, he has 

refused any new cellmate assignment and was brought up on disciplinary charges for his 

refusals. (Id. at 5-6.) In 2012, his jailors at Salinas Valley granted his request for single 

cell status. (Id. at 6.) Van Batenburg now asks for the same housing at R.J. Donovan. 

Whether counsel should be appointed, obviously, is a decision committed to the 

sound discretion of the receiving court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 6, 2017

_________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-02214-BAS-KSC Document 16 Filed 04/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2