Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03500/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03500-0/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMBRI SEAN JOHNSON, SR., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-1053-EFB P 

ORDER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in this district because he cannot obtain a 

“full & fair hearing” in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California 

because that is where he was convicted. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The gist of plaintiff’s complaint is 

that his conviction was obtained through a vast conspiracy involving numerous defendants, at 

least one of whom allegedly resides in this district (former Governor Brown), and others located 

in the Northern District. See id. at 2-3. 

The federal venue statute 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 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 an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 

Case 3:19-cv-03500-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 Page 1 of 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 

2 

this action, 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). 

 In this case, any potential claims arose in San Mateo County, where plaintiff was tried and 

convicted. Although venue could also be proper in this district given plaintiff’s inclusion of one 

or more defendants alleged to reside here, the court finds that the interests of justice will be better 

served by transferring this case to the Northern District of California, which spans thirteen 

counties in addition to San Mateo County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Northern 

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

Dated: June 13, 2019. 

Case 3:19-cv-03500-WHA Document 4 Filed 06/13/19 Page 2 of 2