Opinion
2:23-cv-0040 DAD CKD P
11-02-2023
DAVID BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, a state detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 29, 2023, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff has now filed an amended complaint. After reviewing the amended complaint, the court finds that transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California is appropriate.
The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may 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 action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal 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 Newsom, the Governor of the State of California, resides in this district. Nevertheless, the court is transferring this action to the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in the interests of justice for the following reasons.
It is clear that plaintiff is suing Governor Newsom solely in a respondeat superior capacity. Additionally, plaintiff is seeking monetary damages only and has not stated a claim for injunctive relief. As such, Governor Newsom is subject to be dismissed from this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Fayle v. Stapley, 607 F.2d 858, 862 (9th Cir. 1979). Venue would then be improper in this district because no defendant would be found here. Venue would also be improper because the claims for which plaintiff seeks relief took place in Santa Clara County which resides within the jurisdiction of the Northern District. Thus, it is appropriate that those claims be litigated in that district.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
2. All outstanding motions and requests are denied without prejudice to renewal in the Northern District.