(PC) Evans v. Milam ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RICHARD A. EVANS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00070-JDP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE 12 v. ECF No. 35 13 R. MILAM, et al. 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff’s motion to change the venue of this action to the Northern District of California, 17 ECF No. 35, is denied. Plaintiff makes no argument for why venue would be proper in the 18 Northern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and makes no plausible argument for why convenience 19 or justice require such a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Plaintiff’s desire to change venue based 20 on his apparent disagreement with prior rulings in this court is insufficient to justify such a move. 21 See McCoy v. Stronach, No. 112CV000983AWISABPC, 2019 WL 6894429, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 22 Dec. 18, 2019). 23 If plaintiff believes the court has simply overlooked his amended complaint, ECF No. 34, 24 that believe is mistaken. The court will screen plaintiff’s amended complaint in due course. 25 26 27 28 wOOe UV EEN VERA MVOC OOP OC Ie OY Oe > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° p : —N prssann — Dated: _ September 9, 2020 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 205. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28