Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03383/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ADRIANE GARDEA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:24-cv-3383 AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. On 

December 4, 2024, defendants the State of California and California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). ECF No. 1 at 

1-3. The complaint alleges violations of plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment, as well 

as state law claims. Id. at 5-30. All served defendants have consented to removal and assert that 

they were served on November 6, 2024, and November 8, 2024.1 Id. at 2. The action was 

therefore removed within thirty days of service, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

Section 1441(a) provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the 

1

 Defendants argue that the Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”) is not a separate 

legal entity from CDCR. ECF No. 1 at 2 n.1. Because CDCR has consented and argues that it is 

one in the same as CCWF, the court need not resolve the issue to conclude that all parties served 

have consented to removal. Accordingly, the issue of whether CDCR and CCWF are the same or 

different legal entities is left for another day. 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-DAD-AC Document 6 Filed 12/27/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or 

the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the 

place where such action is pending.” The federal venue statute also states that 

[a] civil action may be brought in 

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 

are residents of the State in which the district is located; 

(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of 

property that is the subject of the action is situated; or 

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought 

as provided in this action, 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). Venue is therefore proper in this court under the removal statute and 

because defendants CDCR is headquartered in Sacramento, which is located in the Sacramento 

Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, see L.R. 120(d), 

and any federal judicial district in California is proper against the State of California, see 

California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558, 569-70 (9th Cir. 2018). However, a district court may, on its 

own motion, “transfer a case sua sponte under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as codified 

at 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), so long as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views 

on the issue.” Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted). In this 

case, such a transfer appears proper. 

Although defendants do not identify proper venue for this case, ECF No. 1 at 1-3, they do 

indicate that the individual defendant Gregory Rodriguez is currently incarcerated in Madera 

County jail. Id. at 2. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the conduct to have violated 

plaintiff’s rights occurred at Central California Women’s Facility (“CCWF”). Id. at 7-30. CCWF 

is in Chowchilla, California, which is also located in Madera County. Madera County is part of 

the Fresno Division of the United States District for the Eastern District of California. See L.R. 

120(d). Furthermore, the State of California, CDCR, and CCWF are not proper defendants. See 

Groten v. California, 251 F.3d 844, 851 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he State is not a ‘person’ for 

purposes of § 1983.”); Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 365 (1990) (“Will[ v. Mich. Dep’t of State 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-DAD-AC Document 6 Filed 12/27/24 Page 2 of 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 

3 

Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)] establishes that the State and arms of the State, which have 

traditionally enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity, are not subject to suit under § 1983 in 

either federal court or state court.”); Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (a § 1983 suit against CDCR is barred by the Eleventh Amendment). Because it 

appears likely that any potentially cognizable claims will be against defendant Rodriguez, who is 

located in Madera County, and that most, if not all, of the evidence and witnesses are in Madera 

County, this action should be transferred to the Fresno Division of this court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) (“a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 

might have been brought”); L.R. 120(f) (the court may, on its own motion, transfer an action to 

another venue within the District for good cause). The parties will have an opportunity to show 

cause in writing why this case should not be transferred. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one days of the service of 

this order, the parties may show cause in writing why this case should not be transferred to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno. Any party that 

does not object to this case being transferred may file a notice consenting to the transfer. 

DATED: December 27, 2024 

Case 2:24-cv-03383-DAD-AC Document 6 Filed 12/27/24 Page 3 of 3