United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
is a state prisoner at California Men's Colony (CMF), in
San Luis Obispo, under the authority of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Plaintiff proceeds pro se with a civil rights complaint filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a request for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
and a request for appointment of counsel. Plaintiff also
requests that this case be transferred back to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
action is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). For the reasons
that follow, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted, his additional requests are denied, and
the undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed
without leave to amend.
case was originally filed in the Central District of
California. By order filed July 31, 2019, the Central
District transferred the case to this district pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the ground that “all of
the named defendants are employed by the BPH [Board of Parole
Hearings] in Sacramento, and all are believed to ‘live
in the Sacramento area,' which is in the Eastern District
of California.” ECF No. 5 at 4-5 (original emphasis).
filed a “Notice of Judicial Error” moving for the
transfer of this case back to the Central District. ECF No.
10. Plaintiff argues that the events or omissions giving rise
to his Claim One occurred at CMC (within the Central
District), while the matters giving rise to his Claim Two
occurred at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF), in
Soledad (within the Northern District). Plaintiff asserts
that the Central District can then bifurcate plaintiff's
claims, retaining Claim One, and “allowing plaintiff to
file Claim Two in the Northern District.” Id.
at 10. Plaintiff notes that he is currently pursuing a
separate civil rights action in the Northern District after
the Eastern District granted plaintiff's his to transfer
that case back to the Northern District.
transferring this case to the Eastern District, the Central
District carefully considered the substance of
plaintiff's claims and the identity of the named
defendants. See ECF No. 5. Giving due weight to the
venue considerations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
Central District found that “there is no indication
that a ‘substantial' part of the events giving rise
to this suit have taken place within the boundaries of the
Central District of California, and there is some evidence
that the October 2015 events may have taken place in the
Northern District of California. On the other hand, as noted
by plaintiff, all of the named defendant are
employed by the BPH in Sacramento[.]” Id. at
4-5. On these grounds and in deference to the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice,
the Central District transferred the case to this district
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Id. at 5.
undersigned finds the reasoning of the Central District
persuasive and, on the grounds stated by that court, will
deny plaintiff's transfer request. Moreover, as discussed
below, transfer is contraindicated because all the named
defendants are immune from suit and plaintiff's claims
are without merit, supporting the undersigned's
recommendation that this action be dismissed without leave to
In Forma Pauperis Application
has submitted an affidavit and prison trust account statement
that make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
See ECF No. 2; see also ECF No. 9
(plaintiff's Inmate Trust Account Statement).
Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma
pauperis will be granted.
must still pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this
action. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(b)(1). By this
order, plaintiff will be assessed an initial partial filing
fee in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the
appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee
from plaintiff's trust account and forward it to the
Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated
to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding
month's income credited to plaintiff's trust account.
These payments will be forwarded by the appropriate agency to
the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in
plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee
is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).
Screening of Plaintiff's Complaint
Legal Standards for Screening Prisoner Civil Rights
court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the
prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous
or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b)(1), (2). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks