(PC) Lear v. Navarro ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00600-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO MOVE CASE FORWARD 13 v. (ECF No. 96) 14 NAVARRO, et al., ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE AND TO 15 Defendants. REOPEN CASE (ECF No. 97) 16 17 Plaintiff Roderick William Lear (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 18 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 19 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Navarro, Neve, Allison, and Plata for 20 excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the incident on January 4, 21 2020. 22 Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the 23 ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing suit, 24 (ECF No. 65), Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, (ECF No. 90), and Plaintiff’s motion to 25 declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad faith and for sanctions, (ECF No. 26 92). Only Plaintiff’s motion to compel is fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 94, 95.) 27 During the pendency of these motions, Plaintiff filed a motion to move the case forward 28 on March 23, 2023, (ECF No. 96), and a motion for change of venue and to reopen the case on 1 June 7, 2023, (ECF No. 97). Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to move the 2 case forward, and the deadline to do so has expired. The Court finds that a response to Plaintiff’s 3 motion for change of venue and to reopen the case is not necessary. The motions are therefore 4 deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l). As the motions raise similar arguments, the Court will 5 address them together. 6 In his motions, Plaintiff argues that the Court has not yet ruled on his motion to compel, 7 has not addressed the motion to declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad 8 faith, and the summary judgment motion has been awaiting adjudication for almost a year. (ECF 9 No. 96.) Plaintiff contends that the Court has conspired with Defendants to close this case and to 10 refuse to rule on his pending motions. (ECF No. 97.) Plaintiff requests that the Court allow the 11 case to move forward, or to transfer it to another court to be reopened. (ECF Nos. 96, 97.) 12 With respect to Plaintiff’s request that the Court resolve the pending motion for summary 13 judgment, Plaintiff is reminded that he has requested further discovery from Defendants in order 14 to supplement his opposition brief before the Court issues a ruling on the summary judgment 15 motion. (ECF Nos. 76, 89.) Plaintiff was then provided the opportunity to file either a motion to 16 compel or a supplemental opposition, and Plaintiff opted to file a motion to compel. (ECF Nos. 17 89, 90.) Before briefing on the motion to compel was completed, Plaintiff then filed a motion to 18 declare Defendants’ summary judgment motion filed in bad faith, and requesting the imposition 19 of sanctions. (ECF No. 92.) 20 Plaintiff is informed that this Court has an extremely large number of pro se prisoner civil 21 rights cases pending before it, and therefore, delay is inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. 22 Due to the heavy caseload, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motions to 23 compel and to declare Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed in bad faith are awaiting 24 decision. The Court is aware of the pendency of this action and will decide the motions in due 25 course. Plaintiff is advised that the filing of excessive motions regarding extraneous matters or 26 requesting updates to his case are unnecessary and serve only to further consume scarce judicial 27 resources. If Plaintiff continues to file such motions, it will serve only to further delay resolution 28 of the pending motions in this action. 1 To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court reopen his action, the request is denied as 2 moot. The case remains open and pending. 3 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for a transfer of venue, the request is denied. “For the 4 convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any 5 civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or 6 division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil action may be 7 brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of 8 the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of 9 the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The party 10 seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating that the action could 11 have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); 12 Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, 13 Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 14 Plaintiff has provided no argument that would support the transfer of this action to any 15 other district, aside from his desire for a faster resolution of this action. This is not a sufficient 16 justification to transfer this action to another district. Accordingly, venue remains appropriate in 17 this district. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion to move case forward, (ECF No. 96), is DENIED; 20 2. Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue and to reopen case, (ECF No. 97), is DENIED; and 21 3. The pending motions in this action will be decided in due course. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: June 12, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28