Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION COTTRELL BROADNAX, Case No. 25-cv-04483-PHK Plaintiff, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
v. THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Defendants.
INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Kern Valley State Prison (“KVSP”), has filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Dkt. 9]. The Complaint names as defendants (and identifies them by title) the following persons explicitly: Gavin Newsom (the Governor of California), Rob Bonta (the Attorney General of the State of California), Jeff Macomber (CDCR
Secretary), and Pat Horn (Warden of KVSP). Id. at 2.
On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff attempted to initiate this lawsuit by filing two documents consisting of fragments of other documents with extensive interlineations handwritten in the margins. [Dkts. 1-2]. On May 28, 2025, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice to Plaintiff explaining that Plaintiff needed to file a Complaint to initiate this suit, and providing a blank copy of a form civil rights complaint for a prisoner and setting a deadline for filing a completed complaint. [Dkt. 3]. Plaintiff filed three more documents consisting of extensive handwritten notations added to other documents and forms. [Dkts. 6-8].
Finally, on June 17, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint in this action. [Dkt. 9]. The Complaint locked under seal in the Court docket by the Clerk’s office due to personal *2 identifiers contained therein. Id. The handwritten Complaint is largely unintelligible, consisting mostly of fragments and extensive handwritten notations added both in the blank spaces of the form complaint as well as in the margins. While only naming explicitly the four Defendants listed above, the Complaint also makes reference to various other individuals by name, who appear to be state court judges, federal court judges, court staff, attorneys, and KVSP correctional officials and staff. Id. To the extent comprehensible, the Complaint appears to attempt to allege that Plaintiff has committed no crimes or Rules Violations; and that his jury trial was held without his knowledge or consent and in absentia. Id .
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court ORDERS that this action be transferred to the Eastern District of California. DISCUSSION Venue is generally proper in a judicial district in which: (1) any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the state in which the district is located; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Complaint does not allege that any of the named defendants reside in this judicial district. [Dkt.
9].
The Court has the authority to take Judicial Notice of certain facts under the proper circumstances. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”). The Court takes judicial notice that Defendant Newsom’s office is located in Sacramento, California. See https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/ (Governor Newsom may be reached by mail at 1021 O Street, Suite 9000, Sacramento, CA 95814). The Court takes judicial notice that, as the California Attorney General, Defendant Bonta’s office headquarters are located in Sacramento, California. See https://oag.ca.gov/contact/mailing-addresses (Office of Attorney General located at 1300 “I” *3 Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2919). The Court takes judicial notice that, as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”), Defendant Macomber’s office headquarters are located in Elk Grove, California. See https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/opec-who- we-are/ (“CDCR headquarters in Elk Grove”). The Court takes judicial notice that, as the warden of Kern Valley State Prison which is located in Delano, California, Defendant Horn’s office is located in Delano, California. See https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/facility-locator/kvsp/ (Patwin Horn has been acting KVSP warden since June 2024; KVSP physically located in Delano, California).
The Court takes judicial notice of the following geographic facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute and are readily determined from sources (government websites) whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned:
Defendants Newsom, Bonta, and Macomber are located in Sacramento County. See https://www.saccounty.gov/us/en/cities-within-the-county.html (cities of Sacramento and Elk Grove are located in Sacramento County). Defendant Horn and Plaintiff both are located in Kern County. See https://www.cityofdelano.org/105/Police-Department (“The city of Delano is the northernmost city in the County of Kern.”). Kern County and Sacramento County both lie within the geographic boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, based on facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute, the Plaintiff and all Defendants are located in the Eastern District of California. As pled in the Complaint, no Defendants are located in the Northern District of California, and none of the events at issue giving rise to this action occurred in the Northern District of California. To the extent the Complaint is decipherable, the events giving rise to the claim asserted occurred in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, venue for this action properly lies in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this matter. [Dkt. 10]. Because
no Defendants have yet been served or appeared, no Defendants have had an opportunity to
consent or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. However, consent of the Parties is not required
to resolve the venue issue presented here. A transfer of this action for lack of venue is non-
*4
dispositive and therefore within a Magistrate Judge’s authority to order.
See Lighting v. Officer 1
,
In an analogous procedural context, the Ninth Circuit held that a ruling that does “not
dispose of any claims or defenses and [does] not effectively deny [the plaintiff] any ultimate relief
sought” is non-dispositive and properly within a Magistrate Judge’s authority to order pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
See S.E.C. v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc
.,
Further, a district court may either dismiss an action filed in the wrong venue or, in the interests of justice, may transfer the case to any district in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). As discussed herein, all the Parties named are located in the Eastern District of California, and to the extent intelligible, the events giving rise to the Complaint appear to have all occurred in the Eastern District of California. Thus, this case could have been brought in the Eastern District of California. The Court finds, within the full extent of its discretion, that transfer in this situation is in the interests of justice, as opposed to dismissal.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the Court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case in this Court’s docket upon transfer. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 30, 2025
______________________________________ PETER H. KANG United States Magistrate Judge
