Keyara Kimbrough et al v. State of North Carolina
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR WRONG VENUE by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. The complaint suffers from other obvious problems (including those related to standing and immunity), transferring this case would not serve the interest of justice, and so the Court DISMISSES the case without prejudice. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rolm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:23-cv-09312-SB-SHK
COMPLAINT FOR WRONG
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Plaintiff Keyara Kimbrough filed a complaint alleging that Defendant State
of North Carolina violated her son’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Dkt. No. 1. Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3.
Pursuant to its obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court screened the
complaint. See Shirley v. Univ. of Idaho, College of Law, 800 F.3d 1193, 1194
(9th Cir. 2015) (stating that a “district court shall screen . . . an action filed by a
plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis”).
A court may raise the issue of venue sua sponte where the defendant has not
filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not yet run. See Costlow
v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). A civil action may be brought in
“(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located; (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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When
venue is in the wrong district or division, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could
have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Here, Plaintiff makes no allegations that would make venue proper in this
district: she is a resident of North Carolina; the defendant is the State of North
Carolina; and “the actionable offenses occurred within the State of North
Carolina.” Dkt. No. 1. Because the complaint suffers from other obvious
problems (including those related to standing and immunity), transferring this case
would not serve the interest of justice, and so the Court DISMISSES the case
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 14, 2023
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?