Patron-Rettick v. Nakamoto et al

Filing 5

ORDER Transferring Case to the Northern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/15/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6

GLENDA PATRON-RETTICK,

7
8
9

CASE NO. 1:12-CV–1939-LJO-SKO

Plaintiff,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

v.
JOHN NAKAMOTO; and PETER
NGUYEN,

10
Defendants.
11
/
12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

14

Plaintiff Glenda Patron-Rettick ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint on November 29, 2012,

15

asserting a claim against Defendant John Nakamoto ("Nakamoto") and Peter Nguyen ("Nguyen").

16

(Doc. 1.) Plaintiff states that Nakamoto is a pretrial services officer who inadequately supervised

17

parolee Marc David Butler ("Butler") by delivering substandard reports to the San Jose court. (Doc.

18

1.) Plaintiff alleges that Butler was unfit for probation, and Nakamoto failed to report that Butler's

19

mental and physical health were declining. (Doc. 1.)

20

According to Plaintiff, Nakamoto failed to perform any home visits, and Butler "took up

21

residence under a bridge on Hamilton [Avenue] in San Jose, [California]." (Doc. 1, 1:11-13.)

22

Plaintiff also asserts that Butler's health declined as Butler rode a bike to attempt to visit Nakamoto.

23

Ultimately, Nakamoto "gave the case to Peter Nguyen when he could not handle [Butler] any longer

24

and he broke up his ties with John. Peter Nguyen did nothing about capturing [Butler]." (Doc. 1,

25

1:20-21.)

26

Subsequently, Plaintiff hired Butler to do some home repairs on her house in Kern County.

27

Ultimately, Plaintiff was attacked by Butler, and Plaintiff sustained a broken nose and a concussion.

28

(Doc. 1, 1:22-25.)

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

Venue is generally proper in

3

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same
State, (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 section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

4
5
6

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). In assessing venue, the court should look to the entire sequence of events
7
underlying the claim with a focus on the defendants' rather than the plaintiff's actions. Uffner v. La
8
Reunion Francaise, S.A., 244 F.3d 38, 42 (1st Cir. 2001).
9
As Defendants in this case appear to reside in San Jose, California, and the events giving rise
10
to this action allegedly occurred in San Jose, California (i.e., Defendants' alleged failure to properly
11
supervise Butler), venue does not appear proper in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
12
of California, and the case should have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
13
of California. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may raise defective
14

venue sua sponte).1

15
III.

CONCLUSION

16
Accordingly, this action is HEREBY ORDERED TRANSFERRED to the United States
17
District Court for the Northern District of California.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21

Dated:
ie14hj

January 15, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court takes no position on whether the complaint states a cognizable claim or whether subject matter
jurisdiction lies in a federal court. As such, the Court also takes no action with respect to Plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.

2