Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04853-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATT GRECO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04853-JSC 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Plaintiff Gloria Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings 

this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against San Diego District Attorney Matt Greco, the San 

Diego District Attorneys’ Office, and the County of San Diego (collectively “Defendants”).1 

Plaintiff is a resident of Redwood City, California, but all of the Defendants reside in San Diego, 

California. Because it appeared that venue may not be proper in this District, the Court issued an 

Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be transferred for improper venue (“OSC”). 

(Dkt. No. 8.) In response, Plaintiff contends that it will be a health and financial hardship for her 

to travel to San Diego. (Dkt. No. 10.) Because Plaintiff’s response fails to demonstrate that venue 

is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a), this case is TRANSFERRED to the District Court for the Southern District of California 

pursuant to the federal venue statutes. 

 

1

Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

(Dkt. No. 7.)

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s two-page Complaint names San Diego District Attorney Matt Greco 

(“Defendant Greco”), the San Diego District Attorneys’ Office (“Defendant District Attorneys’ 

Office”), and the County of San Diego (“Defendant County”) as Defendants and appears to allege 

various constitutional claims arising out of criminal charges brought against her in San Diego 

County. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.2) According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and her son were charged with 

willfully and unlawfully making false statements to obtain unemployment benefits in violation of 

Unemployment Insurance Code (“UIC”) Section 2101 and for conspiracy to commit the same 

offense. 3 (Id.) Plaintiff appears to contend that the criminal action should have been brought in 

San Mateo County rather than San Diego County as she alleges that the UIC provides that “where 

as the place of trial for offenses enumerated in this chapter (2100’s of the unemployment 

insurance code) shall be in the county of residence or principle place of business or in any county 

where the defendant’s [sic] were transacting buisness [sic] that resulted in the alleged offense.” 

(Id.) In support of this argument, Plaintiff alleges that a preliminary hearing transcript in the 

criminal action contains Employment Development Department investigator Vanessa Magana’s 

statement that “all the transactions happened in Redwood City, County of San Mateo Calif. 94063 

not San Diego Calif.”4 (Id.) Although the Complaint does not specifically allege that Defendants 

deprived Plaintiff of any constitutional rights, it asserts generally that “the Plaintiff is entitled to 

equal protection under the Law under the 14th Amendment,” that “[t]he defendants [sic] suit is 

based on the due process clause of the Law, and Equal protection under the 14th Amendment,” 

that “[t]he defendant is entitled to a trial in front of her constituents and peers,” and that “the 

Plaintiff seeks equal protection under the Law and fair trial under the 5th and 14th amendment.” 

(Id. at 2-3.) 

Because the Court was concerned that venue was improper given that all the Defendants 

reside in San Diego, California, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the action 

 

2 Record citations are to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents.

3

The status of the San Diego prosecution is unclear. A search of the San Diego Superior Court’s 

website revealed the criminal case was filed February 19, 2015, but no other status information is 

available. 

4

The Complaint states this transcript is attached, but there is no record of it on ECF. 

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

should not be transferred to the District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). (Dkt. No. 8.) In response, Plaintiff states that she suffers from numerous 

health problems and is in financial despair. (Dkt. No. 10.) Plaintiff’s response details her health 

issues including that she recently had heart surgery, needs surgery on both knees and both hands, 

uses a sleep apnea machine, struggles to stay awake for eight continuous hours, and has “been 

disabled for twenty plus years.”5 (Id. at 2.) She also states that she lives on a fixed income, 

collects social security, and no one is available to travel with her to San Diego. Plaintiff argues 

that because Defendants are in comparatively good health and financial standing “changing the 

venue from San Diego to Northern California” imposes little or no medical or financial burden on 

Defendants whereas she is constantly at risk of dying, a risk that is exponential compared to others 

and which multiplies by adding any type of travel to the equation. (Id.) Also attached to the OSC 

response is a motion for a change of venue that Plaintiff appears to have filed in San Diego 

Superior Court in the San Diego prosecution. (Dkt. No. 10 at 24-99.) Plaintiff appears to conflate 

the Court’s OSC with a request that this Court transfer her criminal case to a court in Northern 

California.

DISCUSSION

The general venue statute provides that in federal question cases, venue is proper in a 

judicial district (1) “in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in 

which the district is located”; (2) “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 

to the claim occurred”; or (3) “if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought 

as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Moreover, section 

1404(a) allows a transfer of venue by motion of either party, or by the court sua sponte, so long as 

the parties have the opportunity to present their views on the issue. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 

1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s order to show cause fails to demonstrate that venue is 

proper in this district given that all of the Defendants reside in San Diego, California. While the 

Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s health issues and her financial difficulties, neither provides a 

 

5

Plaintiff has submitted medical records which appear to support these allegations. (Dkt. No. 10.)

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

basis for venue in this district. Plaintiff appears to misapprehend the nature of this action as a 

large portion of her arguments appear to be focused on transfer of her San Diego criminal 

prosecution to Northern California. Nor does a review of the record suggest that any of the bases 

for venue under Section 1391(b) apply: none of the Defendants reside here, none of the events 

giving rise to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim, i.e., her criminal prosecution in San Diego, occurred 

in the Northern District of California, and finally, there is a district—the Southern District—

wherein Plaintiff could have brought her claims. 

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this case is 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATT GRECO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04853-JSC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on March 2, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Gloria Rodriguez

2408 Spring Street

Redwood City, CA 94063 

Dated: March 2, 2016

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 12 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 5