Manuel Perez v. Lisa A Smittcamp
1:15-cv-00432
E.D. Cal.Oct 1, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Manuel Perez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action originally in the Central District of California on March 12, 2015.
- The Central District transferred the case to the Eastern District of California on March 18, 2015, concluding venue properly lies there under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
- The Court screened Perez’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it with leave to amend on August 21, 2015.
- Instead of amending, Perez moved for reconsideration on September 28, 2015, challenging the venue transfer and asking either that the Central District retain jurisdiction or the cases be consolidated in Los Angeles.
- The Court found the only named defendant (the Fresno County District Attorney) resides in Fresno County and the alleged misconduct occurred in Fresno County, which lies in the Eastern District; the Central District has no significant contact with the claims.
- The Court denied reconsideration and transfer, gave Perez 21 days to file an amended complaint consistent with the screening order, and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under § 1391 | Perez contends Central District or Los Angeles is proper forum and seeks consolidation there | Venue is proper in Eastern District because defendant resides and the alleged events occurred in Fresno County | Transfer to Eastern District was proper; Central District lacks significant contact |
| Motion for reconsideration standard | Reconsideration is warranted to return case to Central District or consolidate | No new evidence, clear error, or change in law shown to warrant reconsideration | Motion for reconsideration denied; Plaintiff failed to meet Rule 60(b) standards |
| Transfer for convenience (§ 1404(a)) vs. forum non conveniens | Perez invokes forum non conveniens, argues Los Angeles is more convenient | Transfer authority is § 1404(a); parties did not consent and Central District is not a proper venue | Forum non conveniens inapplicable; § 1404(a) transfer unwarranted given lack of venue/connectivity to Central District |
| Effect of plaintiff residence on venue weight | Perez emphasizes his Los Angeles residence and personal inconvenience | Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given less weight when forum lacks significant contacts to the claims | Plaintiff’s residence does not overcome the absence of any contact between Central District and the alleged conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) (venue analysis and preferred districts under § 1391)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (distinguishing transfer statute from forum non conveniens)
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for motions for reconsideration under Rule 60(b))
- United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (requirements for seeking reconsideration beyond disagreement)