(PC) Reed v. Buckel

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAL REED, Case No. 1:23-cv-01431-NODJ-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF 13 v. VENUE

14 BUCKEL, et al., (ECF No. 25) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Mychal Reed (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint has not yet been 19 screened. 20 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue, filed January 19, 21 2024. (ECF No. 25.) 22 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 23 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 24 to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil 25 action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 26 are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 27 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 28 § 1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 1 that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 2 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 3 Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 4 In his motion, Plaintiff argues that the main defendants, Richard J. Donovan Facility 5 (“RJDF”) and RJDF officials, are located in the jurisdiction of the Southern District of California, 6 and therefore for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, it would be more appropriate to 7 litigate in the Southern District. (ECF No. 25.) In addition, Plaintiff argues that the constitutional 8 violations all began at RJDF, and the bulk of Plaintiff’s claims occurred at RJDF. (Id.) 9 In the complaint, Plaintiff raises claims arising from time periods when he was housed at 10 RJDF (Claim I), California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) (Claim II), and Kern Valley State 11 Prison (“KVSP”) (Claim III). (ECF No. 1.) Four of the named defendants are employed at 12 RJDF, one is employed at CCI, four are employed at KVSP, and one is employed by the Office of 13 Appeals for CDCR. (Id.) While Plaintiff is correct that claims that occurred while he was housed 14 at RJDF could be brought in the Southern District, any claims that occurred while he was housed 15 at California Correctional Institution and Kern Valley State Prison are more appropriately heard 16 in this district. At this time, the Court expresses no opinion as to whether these claims are all 17 appropriately joined or should be heard together in a single action. 18 This preliminary review of the complaint does not support Plaintiff’s contention that the 19 “bulk” of the events giving rise to this suit took place at RJDF. The Court further notes that, 20 together with the complaint, Plaintiff filed a request for the Court to not transfer his complaint to 21 a different court, and specifically requested that the complaint not be transferred to the Southern 22 District. (ECF No. 1, pp. 9–10.) In that request, Plaintiff stated that he had a pending bias 23 complaint against judges in the Southern District of California, and believed it would be a conflict 24 of interest and subject him to additional prejudice if his case were transferred to that district. (Id.) 25 Plaintiff does not address these concerns in his motion to change venue. 26 At this time, the Court does not find that Plaintiff’s conclusory argument that the bulk of 27 his claims occurred while he was housed at RJDF, particularly in light of his prior request to not 28 have his case transferred to the Southern District of California, supports a transfer of venue at this 1 time. While Plaintiff has met the threshold burden of showing that at least some of his claims 2 could have been raised in the Southern District, based on Plaintiff’s motion and the current 3 allegations in the complaint, the Court does not find that a “substantial part” of the events giving 4 rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of California. 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue, (ECF No. 25), is HEREBY 6 DENIED, without prejudice. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: January 22, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28