(PC)Evans v. Ourique ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RICHARD A. EVANS, Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-ADA-BAM (PC) 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE 10 v. (ECF No. 23) 11 OURIQUE, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Richard A. Evans (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil 15 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a 16 change of venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 23.) 17 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 18 may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or 19 to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “A civil 20 action may be brought in—(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 21 are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (2) a judicial district in which a 22 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1391(b). The party seeking the transfer must meet an initial threshold burden by demonstrating 24 that the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 25 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985); Park v. Dole 26 Fresh Vegetables, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1093 (N.D. Cal. 2013). 27 The events at issue in this action occurred while Plaintiff was housed at the California 28 Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (“CSATF”) in Corcoran, California in Kings County, which 1 is located within the boundaries of the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. 2 Plaintiff names as defendants: (1) J. Ourique, Associate Warden, CSATF; (2) J. Collins, AW, 3 CSATF; (3) P. Brightwell, AW, CSATF; (4) CRM De La Cruz, Plant Ops, CSATF; (5) R. 4 Milam, CSATF; (6) R. Markin, CCII Appeals Coordinator, CSATF; (7) A. Shaw, CSATF; (8) A. 5 Shimmin, CDW, OOA; (9) C. Rojas, AW, OOA; (10) S. Marsh, AW, OOA; (11) A. Vasquez, 6 AW(A), OOA; (12) S. Smith, Chief Deputy Warden, OOA; and (13) M. Moseley, Chief, OOA. 7 Plaintiff appears to allege that all defendants work at either CSATF or OOA. 8 However, there is no indication that any, much less “a substantial part,” of the events 9 giving rise to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the United States District Court 10 for the Northern District of California. Rather, Plaintiff argues that he seeks a change of venue 11 due to “the prejudicial decisions” of judges in this district and the denial of his in forma pauperis 12 status. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff contends that this denial renders this action a conspiracy by 13 Eastern District judges and CDCR. Plaintiff wishes to move his case to the Northern District due 14 to “prejudicial rulings,” and states that he has filed Ninth Circuit judicial complaints regarding the 15 Eastern District judges for their prejudicial decisions and misconduct that deprive him of his 16 constitutional rights. (Id.) 17 Plaintiff’s disagreement with the rulings in this action (or any other actions pending in the 18 Eastern District) is not sufficient justification to transfer this action to the Northern District. 19 Accordingly, venue remains appropriate in the Fresno Division of this district. 20 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for change of venue, (ECF No. 23), is HEREBY 21 DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: October 7, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28