Moqaddem v. Solorzano
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:23-cv-04918
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Moqaddem v. Solorzano, Judge Gilliam denied requests to reopen and return the case, concluding venue belonged in the Central District of California.
Maha Moqaddem’s requests to reopen the closed case and transfer it back to the Northern District of California were denied. The case remained transferred to the Central District of California, and the order did not decide the merits of her allegations against Katherine Solorzano and Joseph Burghardt.
What happened
Maha Moqaddem filed this case without a lawyer, alleging that Los Angeles County Superior Court judges Katherine Solorzano and Joseph Burghardt were responsible for her false and fraudulent incarceration. The court previously transferred the case to the Central District of California because the defendants lived there and the relevant events occurred there.
Moqaddem asked the court to reopen the case and transfer it back, arguing that the transfer was improper. She also added other names to the captions of her requests, including Warden and Patricia Tania of the Commission on Judicial Performance, and argued that a main defendant was in the Northern District of California.
In Moqaddem v. Solorzano, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. denied both requests. He ruled that this court could not compel the Central District court to act, explained that any request to transfer the case back had to be made there, and concluded that venue properly lay in the Central District because the operative complaint named defendants residing there and alleged events occurring there. The order also states that the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Moqaddem v. Solorzano · No. 4:23-cv-04918
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 18, 2024
Background
Maha Moqaddem filed this case without a lawyer on or about September 26, 2023. She alleged that Los Angeles County Superior Court judges Katherine Solorzano and Joseph Burghardt were responsible for her false and fraudulent incarceration.
On November 9, 2023, the court transferred the case to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The stated reasons were that the named defendants resided in that district and that the relevant events took place there. Moqaddem then filed two requests asking the court to reopen the case and transfer it back to the Northern District of California.
Court’s reasoning
The court denied the requests to reopen the case and transfer it back.
First, the court stated that it lacked authority to compel a district court in the Central District of California to take action. It said that any request to transfer the case back should be made in the case pending in the Central District.
Second, the court addressed Moqaddem’s request for reconsideration of the November 9, 2023 transfer order and referred to the requirements of Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9. The available opinion text is incomplete at this point, so it does not show the court’s full explanation on this issue.
Third, the court rejected Moqaddem’s argument that venue was improper in the Central District. Venue is the federal judicial district where a civil case may properly be heard. The court explained that venue is based on a defendant’s residence or where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, not on the plaintiff’s residence. It found that both defendants named in the operative complaint resided in the Central District and that the relevant events occurred there.
The court also explained that adding a person’s name to the caption of a later filing did not make that person a defendant in this case. To add a defendant, Moqaddem would have needed to file an amended complaint in the Central District case. Because this case was closed, she could not file an amended complaint in it.
Disposition
The court denied Moqaddem’s requests to reopen the case and transfer it back to the Northern District of California. The order terminated Docket Nos. 15 and 16. It did not decide whether Moqaddem’s underlying allegations about her incarceration were legally or factually valid.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.