Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01357-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRAIG McCARTER, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:14cv-01357-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

(ECF No. 35)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No. 15)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action originally filed in the United States District Court for the Central District 

of California on November 21, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds 

on First Amended Complaint deliberate indifference claims against Defendants Biol, 

Wofford and Zamora.

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/26/14 Page 1 of 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

2

The case arose while Plaintiff was incarcerated at Avenal State Prison (“ASP”). 

On April 25, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of improper venue 

and failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff sought and received an extension of 

time to and including July 5, 2014 in which to file opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

(ECF No. 26.) 

On June 24, 2014, rather than filing an opposition to the motion to dismiss, 

Plaintiff filed a motion to change venue to the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California, as well as a request for further extension of time to oppose 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) 

On August 27, 2014, the case was ordered transferred to this Court, without a 

ruling on Plaintiff’s request for further extension of time. (ECF No. 30.) 

On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed in the Central District a motion to change 

venue to the Eastern District; the motion appears to re-plead his claims. (ECF No. 35.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s September 15, 2014, motion to change venue is rendered moot by the 

August 27, 2014 transfer order. 

Plaintiff has not filed opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The September 

15th motion to change venue, which appears to include pleading language and related 

argument, is not qualifying opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

The Court finds good cause to extend nunc pro tunc the current July 5, 2014

deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion. 

III. ORDER

For the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue (ECF No. 35) is moot and DENIED, 

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/26/14 Page 2 of 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

3

2. Plaintiff shall file opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss not later than 

thirty (30) days after service of this Order, and 

3. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the matter may be dismissed, 

with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01357-MJS Document 38 Filed 10/26/14 Page 3 of 3