(PC) Jones v. Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE ELIJAH JONES, No. 2:23-cv-02960-EFB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1915. 20 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 21 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 22 district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 23 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 24 is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 25 this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 26 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 Venue of this action in the Eastern District of California is based on the presence of one of 28 the defendants, whom plaintiff has identified as “CDCR Administration Policy,” employed as 1 | “Hiring Staff Management at CDCR Sacramento, CA” (ECF No. 1 at 3), neither of which is a 2 || proper defendant in this action. Accordingly, as explained below, the court is transferring this 3 | action to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in the interests of 4 || justice. 5 To the extent plaintiff intends to bring suit based on a policy of the California Department 6 | of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), it is clear that the policy itself is not a proper 7 || defendant and must be dismissed from this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. To the extent plaintiff 8 || intends to bring suit against staff or management of the CDCR in Sacramento, it is clear that 9 | plaintiff is suing the “Hiring Staff Management” solely in a respondeat superior capacity. 10 | Additionally, plaintiff is seeking monetary damages only and has not stated a claim for injunctive 11 | relief. As such, the person(s) and/or entity identified as “Hiring Staff Management” must be 12 | dismissed from this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). 13 | Venue would then be improper in this district because no defendant would be found here. Venue 14 | would also be improper because the claims for which plaintiff seeks relief took place in the 15 | Southern District, during plaintiffs incarceration at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 16 | in San Diego. Thus, it is appropriate that those claims be litigated in the Southern District. 17 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is transferred to the Southern District of 18 | California. Hr (LAS 20 || Dated: May 24, 2024 Lott T bli 7 eL20CY EDMUND F. BRENNAN 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28