Velasquez v. Donahue et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/11/11 ORDERING 6 Motion to Transfer is GRANTED; and this matter is referred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. CASE CLOSED.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-11-1238 LKK GGH (TEMP) PS

v.
PATRICK DONAHOE, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

ORDER
/

16

Presently before before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint

17

for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or, in the alternative, to

18

transfer the action to the Northern District of California.1 The court finds the motion is well

19

taken and that in the interest of justice, the action should be transferred to the correct venue.

20

In this action, plaintiff alleges claims of discrimination, retaliation and wrongful

21

termination arising out of his employment with the United States Postal Service. Although not

22

specifically referenced in the complaint, it appears plaintiff brings his claims under the

23

Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq. and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

24

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. The statute governing venue of such claims provides in

25
1

26

Because oral argument is not of material assistance, this matter is submitted on the
briefs. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g).
1

1

pertinent part that venue is proper “in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would

2

have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

3

Plaintiff here alleges he was terminated from his position of employment with the Postal Service

4

at a unit located in San Francisco and seeks reinstatement into his job in that unit. Compl. at

5

9:1-2; Croteau Decl., ¶ 6. Venue is therefore proper in the Northern District of California.

6

Plaintiff also identifies in his complaint that “Venue is proper in the Northern

7

District of California . . .” Complaint at 14. Moreover, even assuming that an individual

8

defendants is an appropriate defendant in a case such as this (and individuals are not), defendant

9

specifies that his immediate supervisor’s work place was in the Northern District. Complaint at

10

12.

11

In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a complaint filed in the

12

wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918,

13

932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Defendant’s motion to transfer (dkt. no. 6) is granted; and

16

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

17

District of California.

18

DATED: July 11, 2011
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20

JMM
velasquez.tra.ggh

21
22
23
24
25
26
2