United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CHANGE OF
VENUE [ECF Nos. 187, 191]
Joseph Raymond McCoy is appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a change of
venue, filed October 21, 2019.
action is proceeding against Defendants Stronach, Gonzales,
LeMay, Beltran, Fisher, Snell and Tann for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the
April 25, 2019, the Court issued an amended scheduling order.
(ECF No. 129.)
previously stated, on October 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed a
motion for change of venue. (ECF Nos. 187, 191.) Defendants
filed an opposition on November 12, 2019. (ECF No. 199.)
Plaintiff did not file a reply.
is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391 which provides that a
civil action, other than one based on diversity, be brought
in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant
resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in
which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property
that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if
there is no district in which an action may otherwise be
brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in
which any defendant is subject to the court's personal
jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C.
court finds that venue is proper, it may still transfer an
action to another district in which it could have been
brought “[f]or the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, [or] in the interest of justice[.] 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). “Section 1404(a) is intended to place
discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for
transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case
consideration of convenience and fairness.'”
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29
(1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
the court has determined that venue is proper, the moving
party must present strong grounds for transferring the
action. Safarian v. Maserati N. Am., Inc., 559
F.Supp.2d 1068, 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2008). In making the inquiry
regarding whether the action should be transferred,
“the court should consider private and public interest
factors affecting the convenience of the forum.”
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d
834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).