1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CYMEYON V. HILL, 7 Case No. 21-cv-05638-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 DR. CRAIG LAUREAU, et al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 Plaintiff, a civil detainee currently in custody at California State Prison - Sacramento 13 (“CSP-Sacramento”), filed a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to

. Dkt. 1. 14 Thereafter, he filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint in this action. Dkt. 3. 15 In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges claims arising out of Patton State Hospital, where he 16 was previously incarcerated. See

Plaintiff has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis (“IFP”). Dkt. 4. 18 “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 19 transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to 20 any district or division to which all parties have consented.”

(a). 21 Venue for this action is proper in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1391(b)(2). The Central District of California would be the more convenient forum for several 23 reasons. Patton State Hospital is located in San Bernardino County, which is within the venue of 24 the Central District of California. The witnesses and evidence likely will be found primarily in the 25 Central District of California as that is the district in which the relevant events and omissions 26 occurred. None of the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in the Northern 27 District of California, and it does not appear that any witnesses are located in the Northern District 1 does not reside here (as CSP-Sacramento is not located in this district), and he does not allege that 2 || his claims have any substantial connection to the Northern District of California. See IBM Credit 3 Corp. v. Definitive Computer Serv., Inc.,

, *2 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (“Ordinarily, 4 || where the forum lacks any significant contact with the activities alleged in the complaint, 5 || plaintiffs choice of forum is given considerably less weight, even if the plaintiff is a resident of 6 || the forum.”); 17 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 111,13[1][c¢] (Matthew Bender 3d Ed.) (“When the 7 chosen forum is neither the plaintiffs residence nor the place where the operative events occurred, 8 || the court is likely to override the plaintiffs choice . . . unless the plaintiff can show that some 9 || other valid reason supports the plaintiff's choice of forum”’). 10 Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to

(a), this action is 11 TRANSFERRED to the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central 12 || District of California. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith. All pending 13 || motions are TERMINATED on this Court’s docket as no longer pending in this district. IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 15 Dated: January 7, 2022

JUBGE YVONNE GONZAEEZ ROGERS United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28