United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
Stephen Paul McClane, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed this civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Plaintiff is housed
at Washington State Penitentiary (“WSP”) located
in Walla Walla, Washington, and his claims arise out of
actions committed at WSP, the Court orders this case be
transferred to the Eastern District of
who is currently incarcerated at Washington State
Penitentiary (“WSP”) alleges Defendants violated
his constitutional rights when they failed to properly
prosecute and adjudicate a case he filed regarding staff
assault at the Clallam Bay Corrections Center
(“CBCC”). Dkt. 6 at 3.
alleges Defendant Donaldson, the Walla Walla City Attorney,
“failed to bring charges [against] me.”
Id. at 4. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Donaldson
should have charged him based on a May, 22, 2015 infraction.
Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Martin, the Walla
Walla County Superior Court Clerk, would not allow Plaintiff
to retain a public defender for his staff assault case at
CBCC. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendant Lohrman, a
Walla Walla Superior Court Judge, refused to help Plaintiff
determine if he has a disability and seek other relief.
Id. Plaintiff requests “due process in my
staff assault at [CBCC].” Dkt. 6 at 4. Plaintiff does
not seek monetary damages. Id.
Court has not ordered the Clerk's Office to attempt
service of process. Defendant has not appeared in this
action. See Dkt. On March 7, 2017, the Court ordered
Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be
transferred to the Eastern District of Washington. Dkt. 7.
The Court warned Plaintiff failure to file a response to the
Court's order would result in Plaintiff's case being
transferred to the Eastern District. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff did
not file a response to the Court's Order. See
may be raised by the court sua sponte where the
defendant has not filed a responsive pleading and the time
for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790
F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not
founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the
district in which any defendant resides, if all of the
defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the
property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found,
if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is
improper, the district court has the discretion to either
dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of
justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
it is clear Defendants all reside in Walla Walla, Washington
and Plaintiff's claims arise out of actions committed at
WSP in Walla Walla, Washington, which is within the venue of
the Eastern District of Washington. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 128(a). Accordingly, the Court orders this case be
transferred to the Eastern District of Washington.
Clerks' Office is directed to electronically transfer
this case to the Eastern District of Washington fifteen days
after the date of this Order.
 Because an order transferring venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not address the
merits of the case, it is a nondispositive matter that is
within the province of a magistrate judge's authority
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). See Pavao v. Unifund
CCR Partners, 934 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1241 (S.D. Cal. 2013);
Corrinet v. Burke, 2012 WL 1952658, at *6 (D.Or.
Apr. 30, 2012); Shenker v. Murasky, 1996 WL 650974,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 1996) (“An order issued by a
magistrate judge transferring venue under 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) is non-dispositive.”); Holmes v. TV-3,
Inc., 141 F.R.D. 697, 697 (W.D. La. 1991) (“Since
[a motion to transfer venue] is not one of the motions
excepted in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), nor is it
dispositive of any claim on the merits within the meaning of
Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this ruling
is issued under the authority thereof, and in accordance with
the standing order of this Court.”).
 The only allegation related to the
Western District of Washington is Plaintiff's request for
“due process” related to his staff assault case
at CBCC. Dkt. 6 at 4. However, it does not appear Plaintiff
is challenging any conditions of confinement at CBCC, but
instead, Plaintiff is challenging Defendants' failure to
provide him with ...