Patu v. David

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 SOLOMONA RICKY PATU, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00641-JCC-JRC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 12 v.

13 DAVID DAVID, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 The District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to United States 17 Chief Magistrate Judge Richard Creatura. Plaintiff Solomona Patu, proceeding pro se 18 (“representing himself”), initiated this lawsuit on May 11, 2022. See Dkt. 1. The Court has 19 reviewed plaintiff’s proposed complaint and finds the proper venue for this case is the United 20 States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Therefore, the Court orders this case 21 be transferred to the Eastern District of Washington. 22

23 24 1 BACKGROUND 2 In the proposed complaint, plaintiff, who is housed at the Monroe Correctional Complex 3 (“MCC”) in Monroe, Washington, names David David, a doctor, and Ms. Shauna Barker, a 4 therapist, as defendants. Dkt. 1. Both defendants appear to be employees of the Washington State

5 Penitentiary (“WSP”), which formerly housed plaintiff, and which is located in the Eastern 6 District of Washington. Plaintiff alleges that defendant David improperly treated plaintiff’s 7 stomach infection. Id. at 5. Plaintiff also alleges that defendant Barker did not find his stomach 8 condition serious enough to warrant a transfer to another facility. Id. at 6. Both of these events 9 allegedly occurred in the Eastern District, as well. 10 Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this matter should not be 11 transferred to the Eastern District of Washington. See Dkt. 5. Plaintiff’s response to this Order 12 will be discussed below. See Dkt. 6. 13 DISCUSSION 14 Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte (“on its own”) when the defendant has not

15 filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 16 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not based solely on diversity, venue is proper in 17 (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; 18 (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 19 occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) a 20 judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action 21 may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is improper, the district court 22 has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 23 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

24 1 Here, although plaintiff filed this cause of action in the Western District of Washington 2 and resides at MCC, which is in the Western District of Washington, it appears that the events 3 described in the complaint occurred at the WSP, which is located in the Eastern District of 4 Washington. See Dkt. 1. In addition, it appears that neither defendant is domiciled in the Western

5 District of Washington. 6 Further, in his response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, plaintiff did not explain why 7 this matter should stay in the Western District of Washington. See Dkt. 6. Rather, plaintiff asked 8 the Court to provide him with an “ABC formula” stipulating “what I should write and what 9 response I should provide” in order to keep this matter in the Western District, despite the Court 10 having already given these instructions in the Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 6 at 1; See Dkt. 5 at 2. 11 The Court cannot provide legal advice. It is up to plaintiff to allege facts and provide 12 authority sufficient to justify his position. Therefore, the Court declines to provide such an “ABC 13 formula.” 14 CONCLUSION

15 The Court finds venue is improper and the interests of justice require this case be 16 transferred to the proper venue. Accordingly, the Court orders this case be transferred to the 17 Eastern District of Washington and the case be closed.1 18 Dated this 13th day of July, 2022. A 19

20 J. Richard Creatura Chief United States Magistrate Judge 21

23 1 An order transferring venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) does not address the merits of the case; therefore, it is a non-dispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. 24 § 636(b)(1)(A). See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 n. 1 (S.D. Cal. 2013).