Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04853/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04853-0/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.

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY 

MATT GRECO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04853-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO 

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

TRANSFERRED FOR IMPROPER 

VENUE

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiff Gloria Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this action against 

Defendants San Diego District Attorney Matt Greco, the San Diego District Attorneys’ Office, the 

City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego (“Defendants”). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a 

violation of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is a resident of Redwood 

City, California, but all of the Defendants reside in San Diego California. Because it appears that 

venue may not be proper in this district, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why this action 

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

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).

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 8 Filed 12/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

The complaint does not show why the Northern District of California is a proper venue for 

this action. Although the complaint suggests that the case may be filed “in the county where the 

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

investigator stated that “all the transactions happened in Redwood City,” this is not the standard 

for establishing venue. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Because all the Defendants are residents of the 

Southern District of California, Plaintiff must show that a “substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred within the Northern District to maintain venue here. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing by no later than 

January 15, 2016, why this action should not be transferred for improper venue to the District 

Court for the Southern District of California.

As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court directs her attention to the Handbook for Pro Se 

Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website 

located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiff may also contact the Legal Help 

Center, which has offices in San Francisco and San Jose, for free assistance regarding her claims.

San Francisco

United States Courthouse

450 Golden Gate Avenue

15th Floor, Room 2796

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Appointment line: 415-782-8982

San Jose

United States Courthouse 

280 South 1st Street 

2nd Floor, Room 2070 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Monday to Thursday 1:00pm - 4:00pm 

Phone: 408-297-1480

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04853-JSC Document 8 Filed 12/22/15 Page 2 of 2