Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03099/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICIA A. REDDEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE WOMEN’S CENTER OF SAN

JOAQUIN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-03099 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss or transfer for

improper venue. After carefully considering the papers filed by the parties, the Court

concludes that oral argument is unnecessary. See Local Rule 7-1(b).

Plaintiff’s complaint makes a claim under Title VII. Defendants move to dismiss or

transfer on the ground that under Title VII’s special venue statute, venue in the Northern

District of California is not proper. Plaintiff responds that she did not intend to make a Title

VII claim; instead, she claims defendants terminated her employment because she spoke to

the press and that she has a federal claim for violation of the First Amendment. She further

contends that under the general venue statute for federal question cases, venue is proper in

this District because one of the defendants resides in the Northern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Case 3:05-cv-03099-CRB Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\3099\orderrevenue.wpd 2

Of course, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution only applies to

government actors; it does not apply to private corporations or persons. See Manson v. Little

Rock Newspapers, Inc., 200 F.3d 1172, 1173 (8th Cir. 2000) (“Simply put, the defendant is a

private entity, not a governmental entity, and thus is legally incapable of violating anyone’s

First Amendment rights.”). Thus, it does not appear that plaintiff can state a claim against

defendants based on an alleged violation of her First Amendment rights.

Nonetheless, as plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and as defendants moved to dismiss or

transfer for improper venue rather than a failure to state a claim, the Court will give plaintiff

the opportunity to amend her complaint to state a federal claim, if she believes in good faith

that she can do so. Accordingly, on or before December 13, 2005, plaintiff shall file her

amended complaint if any. If plaintiff cannot make a federal claim against defendants,

plaintiff need not file an amended complaint; instead, if the Court does not receive an

amended complaint from plaintiff by December 13 it will dismiss her complaint without

prejudice to plaintiff filing a state law lawsuit in the appropriate state court. In other words,

the dismissal of her complaint will not mean she does not have any claim against defendants;

it will only mean that she does not have a federal claim and therefore this federal court does

not have jurisdiction of her claims.

If plaintiff does file an amended complaint, defendants may respond to the complaint

with an answer or noticed motion to dismiss.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2005 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03099-CRB Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2