1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR, 11 Case No. 19-00419 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 13 14 MARCIA STEVENSON-BRIDGES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in 19 Tehachapi, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to

against 20 two individuals. (Docket No. 1.) The Court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend 21 for Plaintiff to attempt to correct several deficiencies. (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff has 22 filed an amended complaint. (Docket No. 14.) 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See

§ 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins,

(1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend for the following 11 three deficiencies: (1) it was unclear whether the two named individuals, Monee Stevenson 12 and Marcia Stevenson-Bridges, were persons acting under the color of state law or private 13 individuals; (2) it was unclear whether venue was proper in this district because there was 14 no information with respect to where defendants reside or where a substantial part of the 15 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; and (3) whether the claim for 16 damages was barred by Heck v. Humphrey,

(1994), since it appeared Plaintiff 17 had recently suffered a conviction out of Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Docket 18 No. 10 at 2-3.) In the amended complaint, there are indications that venue in this district is 19 not proper as Plaintiff states that the alleged violation occurred in “County Jail – Los 20 Angeles.” (Docket No. 14 at 1-4.) Furthermore, under “Claim 1,” Plaintiff asserts “Sixth 21 Amendment Right to effective assistance of counsel” and then proceeds to give a detailed 22 narrative of his actions in Los Angeles on November 8, 2004, under “supporting facts.” 23 (Id. at 6-9.) 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement 25 of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” “Specific facts are not 26 necessary; the statement need only ‘“give the defendant fair notice of what the…. claim is 1 || (citations omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 2 speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

, (2007) 3 || (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiff's lengthy narrative contains no facts involving any of 4 || the named defendants to give them notice of his claim against them, and therefore fails to 5 |} comply with Rule 8(a)(2). Although this failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) is grounds for 6 dismissal of the entire action, see McHenry v. Renne,

(9th 7 Cir. 1996), in the interest of justice, the Court will transfer the action to the district with 8 || proper venue rather than have Plaintiff suffer a dismissal. 9 Because the relevant facts indicate that the acts complained of occurred in Los 10 || Angeles County, which lies within the venue of the Western Division of the Central 11 District of California, see

(c)(2), venue properly lies in that district and not 12 || inthis one. See

(b).

CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States 16 || District Court for the Central District of California. See

(a). 5 17 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 18 || Western Division of the Central District of California in Los Angeles. See

|| 84(c)(2). 20 IT ISSO ORDERED 21 Dated: _November 15, 2019_ hem Hoy emer) 39 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 23 24 25 Order of Transfer PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\00419Favor_transfer 26 27