Opinion
2:23-cv-00347 DJC KJN P
04-20-2023
ALBERT JOHN HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff is a former state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff's objections to the order by the United States District Court for the Central District of California transferring this action to this court. (ECF No. 15.) The undersigned construes plaintiff's objections as a request for reconsideration of the transfer order, addressed to the undersigned. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff's request for reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff's request for reconsideration, filed March 16, 2023, is arguably untimely because it was not filed within fourteen days of the February 22, 2023 order by Magistrate Judge Castillo transferring this action. See Local Rule 303(b) (“rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service of the ruling on the parties.”). Because plaintiff challenges an order by a magistrate judge from a different district, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned deems plaintiff's request for reconsideration timely.
On February 22, 2023, the Central District transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 6.) The Central District transferred this action because the sole defendant, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), does not reside in the Central District. (Id. at 3.) CDCR headquarters is in Sacramento, California, in the Eastern District of California. (Id.) In the transfer order, the Central District also found that the harm plaintiff allegedly suffered occurred at California State Prison-Tehachapi, located in the Eastern District. (Id. at 4.)
Venue is appropriate in the Eastern District because defendant CDCR is located in this district and plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (for a civil action not based on diversity, venue is proper in a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, or in any judicial district in which a substantial part of events or omissions giving rise to a claim occurred). Accordingly, plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the order transferring this action to the Eastern District is denied.
On March 14, 2023, the undersigned dismissed plaintiff's complaint with thirty days to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 12.) Thirty days passed and plaintiff did not file an amended complaint. Good cause appearing, plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's objections to the order transferring this action (ECF No. 15), construed as a request for reconsideration, is denied;
2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint; failure to file an amended complaint within that time will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.