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)

Download PDF
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

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?