1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAMEN D. RABB, No. 2:25-cv-1908 AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 E. CHAVEZ, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

. 19 The complaint names as defendants correctional officers Chavez and Castro, as well as 20 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary McComber. ECF 21 No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff alleges that Chavez and Castro, who are employed as correctional officers at 22 Kern Valley State Prison, disposed of his personal property in retaliation for filing grievances and 23 lawsuits and that the CDCR generally has ignored threats to his safety.

24 The federal venue statute provides that 25 [a] civil action may be brought in 26 (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; 27 (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 28 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of 1 property that is the subject of the action is situated; or 2 (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 3 is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 4 5

(b). A district court may, on its own motion, “transfer a case sua sponte under 6 the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified at

(a), so long as the parties 7 are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue.” Costlow v. Weeks,

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). In this case, such a transfer appears proper. 9 The conduct alleged to have violated plaintiff’s rights occurred at Kern Valley State 10 Prison, which is located in Kern County, which is in the Fresno Division of this court. 11 Furthermore, though defendant McComber is in Sacramento, which is located in the Sacramento 12 Division of this court, there are no allegations against him, and he appears to have been named as 13 a defendant solely based on his role as CDCR Secretary. See Taylor v List,

, 1045 14 (9th Cir. 1989) (“There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.” (citation 15 omitted)). To the extent plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim generally against the CDCR, it is 16 not a proper defendant. See Howlett v. Rose,

(1990) (“Will[ v. Mich. Dep’t of 17 State Police,

(1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have 18 traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in 19 either federal court or state court.”). 20 For these reasons, it appears likely that any potentially cognizable claims will be against 21 defendants located within Kern County and that this action should be transferred to the Fresno 22 Division of this court. See

(a) (“a district court may transfer any civil action to 23 any other district or division where it might have been brought”); L.R. 120(f) (the court may, on 24 its own motion, transfer an action to another venue within the District for good cause). Plaintiff 25 must therefore show cause in writing why this case should not be transferred to the Fresno 26 Division. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the service of 28 this order, plaintiff must show cause in writing why this case should not be transferred to the 1 | Fresno Division of this court. If plaintiff does not object to this case being transferred, he may 2 || file a notice consenting to the transfer. 3 || DATED: July 14, 2025 . ~ 4 Attlien— are 5 ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28