(PC) Wilson v. Castro

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GERALD JAY WILSON, Case No. 1:24-cv-00542-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 v. TO REMOVE OR TRANSFER CASE 14 J. CASTRO, et al., (Doc. No. 19) 15 Defendants.

16 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s pleading titled “Plaintiff [sic] Motion to Remove or 18 Transfer Plaintiff’s Civil Complaint to Eastern District of Sacramento Jurisdiction As Conflict of 19 Laws in Eastern Jurisdiction of This Court By the Magistrate Assigned by District Judge 28 20 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(A).” (Doc. No. 17, “Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Court 21 grants in part and denies in part the motion. 22 On May 9, 2024, the Court struck Plaintiff’s Complaint because it failed to comply with 23 Rule 8 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint 24 no later than June 10, 2024. (See Doc. No. 16). In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for 25 Reconsideration of the May 9, 2024 Order under Rule 60(b), which the Court denied, and gave 26 Plaintiff until July 28, 2024 to file either an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 27 dismissal. (Doc. No. 18). In response, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, arguing that the Court 28 impermissibly struck his Complaint based on Court rules that are not ordinarily applied to pro se 1 litigants. (Doc. No. 19 at 5-7). Plaintiff asks the Court to transfer his case to the Sacramento 2 Division “because Plaintiff will not receive a fair and impartial initial screening pursuant to 28 3 U.S.C sections 1915(e)(2)(A) and 1915A(b) [in the Fresno Division].” (Id. at 7). 4 MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE 5 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 6 may transfer any civil action to any other district . . . where it might have been brought[.]” 28 7 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The phrase where an action ‘could have been brought’ is interpreted to mean 8 that the proposed transferee court would have subject matter jurisdiction, proper venue, and 9 personal jurisdiction.” Peregrine Semiconductor Corp. v. RF Micro Devices, Inc., 2012 WL 10 2068728, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). 11 For subject matter jurisdiction, prisoner civil rights cases brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12 § 1983 “aris[e] under federal law” and thus fall within this Court’s jurisdiction over matters 13 involving a federal question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Thus, based on the pleadings, the Eastern 14 District of California has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Relevant here, venue is 15 proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the 16 State in which the district is located” or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions 17 giving rise to the calm occurred. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)(2). The named Defendants in this 18 action are all employees of Kern Valley State Prison or contractors working at Kern Valley State 19 Prison, and the events of which Plaintiff complains occurred at Kern Valley State Prison. (See 20 generally Doc. No. 1). Kern Valley State Prison, which is located in Kern County, is within the 21 Fresno Division of this Court. See Local Rule 120(d) (E.D. Cal. 2023). Therefore, venue is 22 proper in the Fresno Division of this Court but not in the Sacramento Division. Indeed, this 23 action was transferred by the Northern District of California to this Court for these reasons. (See 24 Order of Transfer Dated May 6, 2024, Doc. No. 12). Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s 25 Motion to Transfer Venue. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 MOTION TO SCREEN 2 Liberally construed, Plaintiff again objects that the Court struck instead of screening his 3 | original Complaint.! Although the reasons the Court struck the Complaint will likely mirror at 4 | least some of the deficiencies the Court would have pointed out in a screening order, given 5 | Plaintiffs pro se status, the Court will grant Plaintiff's Motion. Thus, the Court will vacate its 6 | prior order striking Plaintiff's Complaint and screen it instead in due course. 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 19) is DENIED in part and 9 | GRANTED in part. The Motion is DENIED to the extent the Court will not transfer this action 10 | Sacramento. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent the Court will screen Plaintiff's original 11 | Complaint. 12 2. The Court VACATES its May 9, 2024 Order striking Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 13 | No. 16) and will screen Plaintiff's original Complaint (Doc. No. 1) in due course. 14 ' | Dated: _ August 7, 2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh Zaskth 16 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 |—§_ — A ' A motion’s “nomenclature is not controlling.” Miller vy. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 27 || (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting Sea Ranch Ass’n y. Cal. Coastal Zone Conservation Comm‘ns, 537 F.2d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 1976)). Instead, we “construe [the motion], however styled, to be the type proper for the 28 | relief requested.” Jd.