(PC) Haag v. Macomber

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JAMES BRADLEY HAAG, No. 2:24-cv-1624 CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF MACOMBER, et al., 15 Defendants. [16] 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983 . The events which form the basis of plaintiff’s claims occurred in San Bernardino 19 County making the United States District Court for the Central District of California the most 20 appropriate forum for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). The only connection to this district 21 is plaintiff’s identification of certain California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 22 officials who appear to work in Sacramento in a supervisory capacity as defendants. Because 23 liability in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case cannot be premised upon a theory of respondeat superior, 24 Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.3d 740, 743-44 (9th Cir. 1978), and the defendants identified have no 25 actual connection at this point to plaintiff’s claims, the Eastern District is not a proper venue. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, and in the interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a), IT IS 2 | HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the 3 | Central District of California. 4 || Dated: September 5, 2024 Card Kt | (£4 (g— 5 CAROLYN K DELANEY? 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [8] 9} 1 10 haagl624.21a