Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00331/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00331-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FLORENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KERNAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00331-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF JURISDICTION OR 

VENUE

(ECF No. 19)

Plaintiff David Florence (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s motion for a transfer of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California. (ECF No. 19.)

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 

may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 

to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “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; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 

that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 

Case 1:19-cv-00331-DAD-BAM Document 21 Filed 03/12/20 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

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 

Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

The events at issue in this action occurred while Plaintiff was housed at North Kern State 

Prison (“NKSP”) in Delano, California in Kern County, which is located within the boundaries of 

the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff names as defendants Secretary 

of CDCR S. Kernan; Undersecretary, Operations of CDCR R. M. Diaz; Undersecretary, 

Administration & Offender Services Kenneth J. Pogue; Director of Division of Adult Institutions 

K. Allison; and Chief Deputy Warden of NKSP B. Kibler. Plaintiff states that all defendants 

reside or work in Sacramento, California, except Defendant Kibler, who is alleged to reside or 

work in Delano, California. However, there is no indication that any, much less “a substantial 

part,” of the events giving rise to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. Rather, Plaintiff argues that due to 

the ongoing judicial emergency in the Eastern District of California, as well as his recent transfer 

to Pelican Bay State Prison, the Court should transfer his complaint to the Northern District so it 

can be assigned to a District Judge in that venue to expedite this case.1 (ECF No. 19.)

Plaintiff’s transfer to a new institution and the judicial situation in the Eastern District are 

not sufficient justifications to transfer this action to the Northern District. Accordingly, venue 

remains appropriate in the Fresno Division of this district.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, (ECF No. 19), is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 11, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 To the extent Plaintiff again requests injunctive relief in the form of his transfer to a new institution or to prevent 

Defendants from transferring him to a Non-Designated Programming Facility yard, those arguments were addressed 

in the Court’s March 10, 2020 findings and recommendations, and the Court declines to discuss them in detail in 

response to the instant motion.

Case 1:19-cv-00331-DAD-BAM Document 21 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2