(PS) Gentle v. Richmond Police Department

Opinion

ANTOINE MARQUISE GENTLE, No. 2:22–cv–945–KJM–KJN PS Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: TRANSFER TO NORTHERN DISTRICT v. OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant. Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, alleges multiple claims against the Richmond Police Department.1 Plaintiff alleges officers of the Department used excessive force against him in an encounter in Richmond, CA in June of 2020. He raises claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Given the location of these events, the court turns to an analysis of venue. Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) states: “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 purpose of Section 1404 is “to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616

1 This case was referred to the undersigned by Local Rule 302(c)(21). } (1964). “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Organization, Inc. v. RICOH Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). Because an order transferring venue does not address the merits of the case, it is a non-dispositive matter within the province of a magistrate judge's authority. See Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners, 934 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 fn.1 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (collecting cases). In deciding whether to transfer a case under Section 1404, courts may consider (among other things): (1) the location where the relevant events took place; (2) the plaintiffs choice of forum; (3) the respective parties’ contacts with each forum; (4) each forum’s contacts with the plaintiffs cause of action; (5) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums; (6) the ability of each court to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses; (7) the ease of access to sources of proof; (8) convenience of the parties; (9) convenience of the witnesses; (10) local interest in the controversy; (11) court congestion of the two forums; and (12) the feasibility of consolidating other claims. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208, 1213 (S.D. Cal. 2013); Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F.Supp.2d 980, 994 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Metz v. U.S. Life Ins. Co., 674 F.Supp.2d 1141, 1145-46 (C.D. Cal. 2009). Given the allegations in the complaint, it appears that this case should be transferred to the Northern District of California for all further proceedings. The court now orders plaintiff file a statement indicating whether he agrees with the court’s assessment. If plaintiff opposes transfer, he shall address the 12 factors above in making his arguments. Failure to respond to this order to show cause will be treated as consent to transfer. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within 21 days of this order, plaintiff show cause why this case should not be transferred to the Northern District of California. Dated: June 9, 2022 gent.945 He jbl Nearer _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE