(PC) Bennett v. Newsom ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID BENNETT, No. 2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2023, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. 19 Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. After reviewing the amended complaint, the court 20 finds that transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is 21 appropriate. 22 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 23 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 24 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 25 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 26 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 27 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 28 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). ] Venue of this action is technically appropriate in the Eastern District because Gavin 2 || Newsom, the Governor of the State of California, resides in this district. Nevertheless, the court 3 || is transferring this action to the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in the interests 4 || of justice for the following reasons. 5 It is clear that plaintiff is suing Governor Newsom solely in a respondeat superior 6 || capacity. Additionally, plaintiff is seeking monetary damages only and has not stated a claim for 7 || injunctive relief. As such, Governor Newsom is subject to be dismissed from this 42 U.S.C. § 8 | 1983 action. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Venue would then be improper 9 || in this district because no defendant would be found here. Venue would also be improper 10 || because the claims for which plaintiff seeks relief took place in Santa Clara County which resides 11 | within the jurisdiction of the Northern District. Thus, it is appropriate that those claims be 12 | litigated in that district. 13 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 15 | California. 16 2. All outstanding motions and requests are denied without prejudice to renewal in the 17 || Northern District. 18 || Dated: November 2, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce 19 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 | 1 benn0040.21c 25 26 27 28