Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01650/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01650-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
C. Gonzales
Defendant
Allen Hammler
Plaintiff
A. Lucas
Defendant
J. Lyons
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLEN HAMMLER,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. LYONS, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:19-cv-01650-AWI-GSA-PC

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REINSTATE DEFENDANT LYONS 

AND TRANSFER CASE BACK TO 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

(ECF No. 20.)

I. BACKGROUND

Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed 

the Complaint commencing this action in the Sacramento Division of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) 

On March 4, 2019, the Sacramento Division court screened the Complaint and issued an 

order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 9.) 

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint against defendants J. Lyons 

(Appeals Coordinator, California State Prison-Sacramento), C. Gonzales (Appeals Coordinator, 

Kern Valley State Prison), and A. Lucas (Appeals Coordinator, Kern Valley State Prison). (ECF 

No. 12.) 

Case 1:19-cv-01650-ADA-GSA Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 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

On November 21, 2019, the Sacramento Division court screened the First Amended 

Complaint and dismissed defendant Lyons from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any

claims against him. (ECF No. 15.) The court also found that venue for Plaintiff’s remaining 

claims against defendants Gonzales and A. Lucas was proper in the Fresno Division and 

transferred the case from the Sacramento Division to the Fresno Division. (ECF No. 15.)

On January 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate defendant Lyons and transfer 

this case back to the Sacramento Division. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the 

court.

II. CHANGE OF VENUE

“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.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based 

on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, 

if all defendants reside in the same State, (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 the 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper 

division of this court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division. Local 

Rule 120(d) provides that “[a]ll civil . . . actions cognizable in the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California arising in . . . Kern [County] . . . shall be commenced in the 

United States District Court sitting in Fresno, California [and] “[a]ll civil . . . actions cognizable 

in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California arising in . . . Sacramento 

[County] . . . shall be commenced in the United States District Court sitting in Sacramento, 

California.”

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff argues that his claims against defendant Lyons should not have been dismissed

because Plaintiff stated a retaliation claim in the First Amended Complaint against defendant 

Case 1:19-cv-01650-ADA-GSA Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 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

Lyons for tampering with Plaintiff’s 602 grievance in violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff 

requests that defendant Lyons be reinstated in this case and the case be transferred back to the 

Sacramento Division.

This court shall not reinstate defendant Lyons because venue for Plaintiff’s claims against 

defendant Lyons lies in the Sacramento Division, not the Fresno Division. Those claims arose 

at California State Prison-Sacramento, which is located in the Sacramento Division. Moreover, 

the order dismissing defendant Lyons was issued by the Sacramento Division court. Under these 

circumstances, the court finds that the Fresno Division court is not the proper court to reconsider 

the Sacramento Division’s order dismissing defendant Lyons. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to 

reinstate defendant Lyons shall be denied.

In contrast, venue for Plaintiff’s claims against defendants Gonzales and Lucas lies in the 

Fresno Division, not the Sacramento Division. Those claims arose at Kern Valley State Prison 

in Delano, California, which is located in the Fresno Division. Thus, under Local Rule 120, 

Plaintiff’s case against defendants Gonzales and Lucas should have been commenced in the 

Fresno Division, and the Sacramento Division properly transferred the case to the Fresno 

Division. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to transfer this case back to the Sacramento Division 

shall be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement of defendant Lyons and transfer of this case 

back to the Sacramento Division, filed on January 21, 2020, is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint shall be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01650-ADA-GSA Document 21 Filed 01/30/20 Page 3 of 3