1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAHA MOQADDEM, Case No. 23-cv-04918-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUESTS TO

REOPEN CASE

9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 15, 16 10 KATHERINE SOLORZANO, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On or about September 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed this pro se case, alleging that Los Angeles 14 County Superior Court judges Katherine Solorzano and Joseph Burghardt are responsible for her 15 false and fraudulent incarceration. Dkt. No. 1. On November 9, 2023, the Court transferred this 16 case to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the named 17 defendants reside in, and the relevant events took place in, the Central District of California. See 18 generally Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff has filed two motions requesting that the Court reopen this case, 19 stating that the case was improperly transferred to the Central District. Dkt. Nos 15, 16. 20 The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s requests to reopen this case and transfer the case back to 21 this district for the following reasons. 22 First, this Court lacks authority to compel district courts in the Central District to take 23 action. See, e.g., Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court 24 lacks authority to issue writ of mandamus to another district court). If Plaintiff seeks to have her 25 case transferred back to this district, she should make that request in her case in the Central 26 District of California. 27 Second, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s November 9, 2023 1 required by N.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9. 2 Third, Plaintiff is incorrect that venue is proper in this district. Plaintiff argues that venue 3 || is improper in the Central District of California because she does not reside in the Central District; 4 || because “(Central District] judges get handpicked to hear cases by well-trained clerks in Central 5 || District Division and that is done by hacking;” and her life has been “racked and damaged and 6 cannot be in Central District.” Dkt. Nos. 15, 16. Plaintiff has also added two new defendants to 7 the captions in these two pleadings: Warden and Patricia Tania of the Commission on Judicial 8 || Performance, and alleges that “the main defendant is in the San Francisco Division.” Dkt. No. 15 9 || at 1; Dkt. No. 16 at 1. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) provides that venue for a civil action is proper in either 10 || the judicial district in which any defendant resides or in the judicial district in which a substantial 11 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Venue is 12 || not determined by Plaintiff's residence, but by either the residence of the defendant(s) or the 5 13 location of the relevant events and omissions. Plaintiff does not dispute that the two defendants 14 || named in her operative complaint reside in, and that the relevant events took place in, the Central 3 15 District of California. Plaintiff seeks to establish venue in this district by naming a defendant that 16 resides in this district. To add a defendant in this case, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint in 3 17 the case in the Central District of California that names the new defendant. Plaintiff cannot file an 18 amended complaint in this case because this case is closed. Adding an individual to the caption of 19 a later-filed pleading does not add the individual as a defendant in this case. The operative 20 complaint names two defendants, both of whom reside in the Central District of California; and 21 alleges events that took place in the Central District of California. Venue properly lies in the 22 Central District of California, and not this district. 23 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 15, 16. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 9/18/2024 *6 Alaspwerl 5 Ab). 7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28