(PS)Crane v. Juhasz ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JODI L. CRANE, Case No. 20-cv-07010-JSC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 10 CITY OF DUNSMUIR, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff Jodi Crane brings this civil rights action against the City of Dunsmuir and various 14 city officials. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in 15 forma pauperis and screened her complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In its screening order, 16 the Court noted that the complaint failed to state a claim, appeared to be filed in the wrong venue, 17 and that Plaintiff could not bring the action on behalf of her business without representation of 18 counsel.1 (Dkt. No. 9.) Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, which 19 she did. (Dkt. No. 15.) Because the amended complaint fails to demonstrate that venue is proper 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this 21 case is TRANSFERRED to the District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to the 22 federal venue statutes. 23 BACKGROUND 24 A. First Amended Complaint Allegations 25 The facts and allegations of Plaintiff’s amended complaint, like her prior complaint, are 26 difficult to discern. (Compare Complaint, Dkt. No. 1 with First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), 27 1 Dkt. No. 15.) Plaintiff appears to allege that the City of Dunsmuir, City Manager Todd Juhasz, 2 Fire Chief Daniel Padilla, and Mayor Jiliana Lucchessi, violated her rights under the Fifth and 3 Fourteenth Amendments by taking her property without due process. (Dkt. No. 15 at 3.2) She 4 appears to allege that the Defendants conspired to deny her due process rights after a building 5 inspector falsified a report deeming her business a “danger.” (Id. at 4-5.) As a result, Plaintiff’s 6 business was forced to close and she has lost her right to earn a living and all means of support. 7 (Dkt. No. 15-2 at 2.) 8 B. Procedural Background 9 Plaintiff filed this action on October 5, 2020 accompanied by an application to proceed in 10 forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court granted the in forma pauperis application and reviewed 11 the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Dkt. Nos. 4, 9.) The Court noted that as currently pled, 12 Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and appeared to be 13 filed in the wrong venue since all the Defendants reside with the Eastern District of California and 14 the events described in the complaint also occurred in the Eastern District of California. Two days 15 later, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or transfer venue, which they withdrew upon receipt of 16 the Court’s Screening Order. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 12.) Plaintiff thereafter filed the now operative 17 amended complaint which omits any claim on behalf of her business JUSTINTIME. (Dkt. No. 18 15.) 19 DISCUSSION 20 Pursuant to the general venue statute governing federal question cases such as this, venue 21 is proper in a judicial district (1) “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of 22 the State in which the district is located”; (2) “in which a substantial part of the events or 23 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”; or (3) “if there is no district in which an action may 24 otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 25 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 Moreover, section1404(a) allows a transfer of venue by motion of either party, or by the court sua 27 1 sponte, so long as the parties have the opportunity to present their views on the issue. Costlow v. 2 || Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to demonstrate that venue is proper in this district 4 given that all of the Defendants reside in Dunsmuir, California. While Plaintiff states that 5 “fairness” favors having the case proceed here because “Defendants Counsil [sic] works in 6 || courthouse in jurisdiction of Plaintiff county,” the Court does not know what Plaintiff means as 7 defense counsel is a private attorney not affiliated with the District Court for the Eastern District 8 of California. (Dkt. No. 15-1 at 2.) In any event, this does not suggest a basis for venue here 9 || under Section 1391(b) as none of the Defendants reside here, none of the events giving rise to 10 Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim occurred in the Northern District of California, and finally, there is 11 a district—the Eastern District—wherein Plaintiff could have brought her claims. 12 Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this case is 13 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 14 The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter forthwith. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 17 |) Dated: January 4, 2021 fe AH) 19 ne JAQYQUELINE SCOTT CORL 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28