Whether a Central District Court can change venue procedures for a pro se plaintiff under Federal Rule 1404(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent

1. Under Federal Rule for venue change can Central District Court of California change rule procedures if plaintiff is pro se? 2. Can Ninth Circuit ignore District Court procedure 28 USC 1404(a) when all parties did not consent and due process FRCP 12 by ignoring 14 days for plaintiff pro se to oppose venue change? 3. Can Central District of California transfer case in alleged bias against a Pro se plaintiff when the only witness is an Illinois recorded deed remitted by the into the case? 4. Can the defendant ’s California attorney fail to give notice of venue change to plaintiff pro se because he was hired as a US Attorney for the Northern District of California? 5. Can a move case to Central District of Illinois, demands payment then denies lifting the prohibition after collecting the $900 sanctions and barring plaintiff right to due process in a court of law? (i) I. Parties to Proceedings Jody D Kimbrell, Petitioner Poipu Holdings, LLC Carlos L Javelera Joan Javelera, Respondents Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, (ii)