Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01850/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01850-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ARTHUR RAY DEERE,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN CDC - EMPLOYEES PRISON 

LAW OFFICES,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01850-KAW (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN 

CLAIMS AND TRANSFERRING CASE 

TO EASTERN DISTRICT

Plaintiff Arthur Ray Deere, a state prisoner incarcerated at the Mule Creek State Prison 

(“MCSP”) in Ione, California, has filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting 

claims against the Prison Law Office and Unknown California Department of Corrections 

(“CDC”) Employees. Plaintiff asserts that hazardous environmental conditions, including the 

water, air, medical and food, at MCSP endanger his health. Plaintiff sues the Prison Law Office

based on the allegation that it knows about these conditions and has “conspired with the state” to 

cover them up. He sues unknown CDC Employees because he is unsure of the proper state 

defendant. He surmises that the proper defendant might be the governor of California, the director 

of the CDC or the warden of MCSP. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned 

magistrate judge.

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims 

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek 

Case 4:16-cv-01850-KAW Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th 

Cir. 1988).

The Prison Law Office is not a proper defendant in this action. To state a claim under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: (1) that a right secured by the 

Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was 

committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

The Prison Law Office is a “nonprofit public interest law firm . . . that provides free legal services 

to adult and juvenile offenders to improve their conditions of confinement.” See Prison Law 

Office, www.prisonlaw.com/about-us/ (last visited May 24, 2016). Because the Prison Law 

Office is not “a person acting under the color of state law,” a civil rights claim under § 1983 

cannot be brought against them. Therefore, any claims against the Prison Law Office are 

dismissed. Dismissal is with prejudice because amendment would be futile.

The only other defendants in this action are unknown CDC employees, who, according to 

Plaintiff, may be the warden of MCSP, the governor of California or the director of the CDC. 

MCSP, in Ione, California, is located in the Eastern District of California. The governor of 

California and the director of the CDC, with offices in Sacramento, California, are located in the 

Eastern District of California.

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the district in 

which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same State, (2) the 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 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The acts alleged in this complaint occurred in the Eastern District of California and 

Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California. Venue, therefore, properly lies in the 

Eastern District of California, not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is 

Case 4:16-cv-01850-KAW Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The 

Clerk of the Court shall terminate all motions and transfer the case forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01850-KAW Document 3 Filed 07/20/16 Page 3 of 3