(PS) Cowan v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LATAWNYA COWAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01170-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 14 U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES D/B/A SAN DIEGO 15 COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Latawnya Cowan is proceeding in this action pro se.1 For the reasons 19 outlined below, the Court will transfer this action to the United States District Court for 20 the Southern District of California for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of 21 justice. 22 I. VENUE 23 The general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), provides that a civil 24 action “may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all

25 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). An order addressing venue transfer does not address the merits of the case and is a non-dispositive matter that falls within the scope of a 27 magistrate judge’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Ames v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2023 WL 7392026, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2023), reconsideration denied, 28 2023 WL 7434359 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2023). 1 defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district 2 in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or 3 a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is 4 no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any 5 judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with 6 respect to such action.” If a court determines the appropriate venue for a case lies in 7 another division or district, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, 8 transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 9 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Even if venue is proper, a court may transfer an action to another 10 district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the 11 interest of justice.” A court may raise and decide the issue of venue sua sponte. See 12 Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff, a resident of Missouri, brings this action against Defendants U.S. Dept. of 15 Health & Human Services d/b/a San Diego County Health & Human Services, County of 16 San Diego, San Diego Health & Human Services Director Kimberly Giardina, and Social 17 Worker Julia Ramzi. Compl. at 2-4 (ECF No. 1). Defendant Julia Ramzi appears to be 18 employed at San Diego Health & Human Services as her address listed is the same as 19 Defendants Kimberly Giardina and the County of San Diego. Compare Compl. at 3-4, 20 with Compl. at 3. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges she was deprived of her “parental 21 rights, food, clothing, housing, [and] medical treatment” and has been discriminated 22 against based on her disability. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff alleges various federal and state law 23 violations against Defendants for incidents that took place in San Diego at “1600 Pacific 24 Hwy San Diego, CA”, and in Sacramento at “744 P. St. Sacramento, CA”. Id. at 5. 25 Although the Complaint states that the incidents took place in San Diego and 26 Sacramento, see Compl. at 5, Plaintiff’s allegations are bare, and it’s unclear whether 27 there is any connection to Sacramento or the Eastern District of California. See generally 28 Compl. On the contrary, three of four defendants are located in San Diego and the only 1 || defendant identified as located in Sacramento is also connected to San Diego (“U.S. 2 | Dept. of Health & Human Services d/b/a San Diego County Health & Human Services), 3 || see Compl. at 2-4, suggesting that in addition to Defendants, witnesses and information 4 | related to this case are also located in San Diego. 5 Though it is unclear whether venue is proper in the Eastern District of California, 6 | even if venue is proper, the Court transfers this action to the Southern District of 7 | California for the convenience of the parties and in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. 8 | §§ 1404(a), 1406(a). Plaintiff is a resident of Missouri, and at least three of four 9 | defendants are located in San Diego, and the fourth defendant is connected to San 10 | Diego. In transferring this action to the United States District Court for the Southern 11 | District of California, this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of 12 | Plaintiff's claims and Plaintiff's pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Parties are 13 | instructed to direct any further filings or inquiries related to this case to the United States 14 | District Court for the Southern District of California. Further documents filed in the 15 | Eastern District of California related to this case will be disregarded. 16 | Ill. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. This action, including Plaintiff's pending motion to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (ECF No. 2), is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 20 Court for the Southern District of California; and 21 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this action. 22 | Dated: 08/12/25 CO i S \U 23 CHI S00 KIM 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 4, cowa1170.25 26 27 28