Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

HARVEY BLIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03031-KAW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

PETITION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT 

TRANSFER TO THE SAN FRANCISCO 

DIVISION; ORDER REQUIRING 

PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CONSENT/ 

DECLINATION FORM

Re: Dkt. No. 13

On June 30, 2015, Plaintiff Harvey Blight filed a civil rights lawsuit against the State of 

California, San Mateo County, and others. (Dkt. No. 1.)

On July 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a petition for intra-district transfer to the San Francisco 

Division on the grounds that he has a heart condition and the San Francisco Courthouse is more 

convenient because “he can get to hearings simply by using available trains or buses.” (Dkt. No. 

13 at 1.) Under Civil L.R. 3-2(c), “[p]ursuant to the Court’s Assignment Plan,...all civil actions 

and proceedings for which this district is the proper venue shall be assigned by the Clerk to a 

Courthouse serving the county in which the action arises.” Civil L.R. 3-2(d), however, provides 

that “all civil actions which arise in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, 

Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo or Sonoma shall be assigned to the San 

Francisco Division or the Oakland Division.” For that reason, the matter was properly assigned to 

the Oakland Division under Civil L.R. 3-2(h).

In practice, civil cases are generally not transferred between the San Francisco and 

Oakland Divisions for a variety of reasons, one of which is their close proximity. The Oakland 

Courthouse is served by public transit, including BART, so any perceived hardship by Mr. Blight 

for having to spend a little more time en route to court is not sufficient to implicate the 

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/03/15 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

convenience or interests of justice concerns articulated in Civil L.R. 3-2(h). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

petition is DENIED.

Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of the 

undersigned to preside over his case. Plaintiff shall complete the attached consent/declination 

form and file it with the Court by no later than August 17, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03031-EMC Document 15 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2