Banks v. Roe et al
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA SPONTE for Improper Venue signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 07/10/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT SUA
SPONTE FOR IMPROPER VENUE
ADRIAN ROE et al.,
Plaintiff Frederick Banks, a prisoner currently confined at the Northeast Ohio Correctional
Center in Youngstown, Ohio, commenced this action on June 22, 2017. According to his
complaint,1 plaintiff alleges various acts of misconduct on the part of at least nine defendants,
primarily relating to his criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania. (See Doc. No. 1.)
A district court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte for improper venue. Costlow v.
Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Under the venue statute applicable to civil actions
not solely based on diversity jurisdiction, such an action must be brought in
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) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all
defendants are residents of the State in which the district is
(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).
Here, venue in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is
improper. From the face of the complaint, none of the defendants reside in California; most
appear to be located in Pennsylvania. Moreover, none of the events giving rise to plaintiff’s
allegations appear to have occurred in the Eastern District of California. Finally, the court
concludes that this action may be brought in at least one other judicial district, namely in the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
1. Venue in United States District Court for the Eastern District of California is
2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 10, 2017
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?