Banks v. Roe et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE for Improper Venue signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/10/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FREDERICK BANKS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-00856-DAD-SKO

v.

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA
SPONTE FOR IMPROPER VENUE

ADRIAN ROE et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Frederick Banks, a prisoner currently confined at the Northeast Ohio Correctional

17
18

Center in Youngstown, Ohio, commenced this action on June 22, 2017. According to his

19

complaint,1 plaintiff alleges various acts of misconduct on the part of at least nine defendants,

20

primarily relating to his criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Western

21

District of Pennsylvania. (See Doc. No. 1.)
A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for improper venue. Costlow v.

22
23

Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Under the venue statute applicable to civil actions

24

not solely based on diversity jurisdiction, such an action must be brought in

25
1

26
27
28

Plaintiff’s complaint appears to be substantially identical to complaints filed on his behalf in
district courts throughout the country. See, e.g., Banks v. Roe, No. 1:17-cv-01492-GPG (D.Colo.)
(filed June 29, 2017); Banks v. Roe, No. 2:17-cv-06054-MLCF-MBN (E.D. La.) ( filed June 19,
2017); Banks v. Roe, No. 6:17-cv-00371-RC-JDL (E.D. Tex.) (filed June 19, 2017); Banks v. Roe,
No. 1:17-cv-00744-TSE-MSN (E.D. Va.) (filed June 29, 2017).
1

1

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
located;

2
3

(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

4
5

(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.

6
7
8
9

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Here, venue in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is

10

improper. From the face of the complaint, none of the defendants reside in California; most

11

appear to be located in Pennsylvania. Moreover, none of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s

12

allegations appear to have occurred in the Eastern District of California. Finally, the court

13

concludes that this action may be brought in at least one other judicial district, namely in the

14

Western District of Pennsylvania.

15

Accordingly,

16

1. Venue in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is
improper;

17
18

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and

19

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 10, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2