(PC) Hammler v. Zydus Pharmacev ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00956-JLT-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RETURN CASE TO SACRAMENTO 13 v. DIVISION 14 ZYDUS PHARMACEV, et al., (ECF No. 7) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 18 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was transferred from the Sacramento 19 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California to the Fresno 20 Division on August 2, 2022. Plaintiff has not paid the $402.00 filing fee or submitted an 21 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 22 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to return case to Sacramento Division, 23 filed August 25, 2022. (ECF No. 7.) 24 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 25 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 26 to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil 27 action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 28 are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 1 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 3 that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 4 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 5 Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 6 The events at issue in this action, beginning on or about March 4, 2020, primarily 7 occurred while Plaintiff was housed at California State Prison Corcoran (“CSPC”) in Corcoran, 8 California in Kings County, which is located within the boundaries of the Fresno Division of the 9 Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1, p. 3.) Plaintiff names as defendants various 10 corporations that contract with CDCR to manufacture pharmaceuticals and with unknown places 11 of business, as well as individual defendants who are all alleged to work at CSPC. (Id. at 3–4.) 12 Plaintiff argues that the complaint seeks injunctive relief to redress ongoing violations at 13 California State Prison Sacramento (“CSPS”), where he was housed at the time the complaint was 14 filed. Plaintiff refers to a footnote in the complaint where he notes that “other instances took 15 place at Cal. State Prison Sacramento (CSPS.) Where Plaintiff is currently housed.” (Id. at 2, 16 n.1.) Plaintiff also refers to three paragraphs at the end of his complaint that set forth additional 17 allegations against defendants employed at CSPS that occurred on a single date—May 27, 18 2022—to demonstrate that his claims are ongoing at his present institution. (Id. at 45–46.) 19 However, there is no indication that “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to this 20 suit have taken place within the boundaries of the Sacramento Division. The fact that Plaintiff 21 wishes to bring claims against defendants at a different institution due to alleged “ongoing” 22 violations of a similar nature, does not mean that “a substantial part” of the events giving rise to 23 the suit occurred at the new institution. At this time, the Court also expresses no opinion as to 24 whether these claims are appropriately joined to the initial claims in this action. 25 Where the complaint raises allegations pertaining to events occurring in the Fresno 26 Division from approximately March 2020 through May 2022, Plaintiff’s claims of ongoing 27 violations by defendants employed at a different institution arising on a single day in May 2022, 28 is not sufficient justification to transfer this action to the Sacramento Division. Therefore, venue 1 remains appropriate in the Fresno Division of this district. 2 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue, (ECF No. 19), is HEREBY DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 30, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28