McDaniel v. The United States of America et al

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE; #2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as Moot. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 3/4/2016. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL,

Case No. 16-cv-00414-NJV

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff filed this action against The United States of America, University of Davis, Ca.,

15

Avid Reader Book Store, Adele Young, Alumni of the University of Davis, Ca, Ellyn Bell, Stacey

16

Bell, Peter Matthews, Colin Winnette, Bill Pieper, Pence Gallery, Janet Napolitano, Chancellor of

17

the University of Davis, Ca., and The City of Davis, Ca., alleging ten causes of action. See

18

Compl. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.

19

2). In addition, Plaintiff consented to the undersigned‟s jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28

20

U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 4).

21

Because Plaintiff seeks to proceed without the prepayment of the required filing fees, the

22

court is obliged to review the Complaint pursuant to the dictates of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Under 28

23

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . .

24

(B) the action or appeal . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief

25

may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

26

relief.” A review of the Complaint reveals that this case is properly dismissed.

27
28

United States Code § 1391(b) provides that “[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

1

the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

2

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

3

situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in

4

this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court‟s personal

5

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” None of these provisions apply in this case. That is,

6

Defendants reside in the Eastern District of California and the events alleged in this action took

7

place in the Eastern District of California.

8
9

Plaintiff states that venue is proper in this district because of § 1391(b) “and in the „interest
of justice‟ (law) to proceed in this court, as the nature of the case might better suit, the „interest of
the justice‟ for the Plaintiff in this forum.” Compl. (Doc. 1) at 2. Plaintiff explains further as

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

follows:

12

15

Finally, [b]ecause [sic] the Plaintiff has already filed cases at the Sacramento, Ca.
Federal Court and the San Francisco, Ninth Circuit. She was hoping to receive a
better response to the respect of civil rights laws and the constitution, as can be
reflected from the a community that is always seeking the application of civil
rights, in the interest of justice for those whom have been harmed. Such is the
Plaintiffs goals with seeking her constitutional rights protected, and respected,
within the district and sanctity of the Federal Court of San Francisco, Ca.

16

Id. Indeed, according to her Complaint, Plaintiff has filed several actions on these claims in the

17

Eastern District of California, listing: “case number: 2:15-cv-00937, and then filed at the Appeals

18

Court of the Ninth Circuit, case number 15-16656. Additionally, more specific cases about such

19

conspiracies and treasons of the United States, their spy tactics and harassments against the

20

Plaintiff, are also Sacramento, Ca. Federal cases 2:14-cv-01113 (appeals court case, 15- 16731),

21

and federal case 2:15-cv-01114 (appeals court case: 15-17354) . . . [and] 2:13-cv-2653 MCE AC

22

PS.” Id. at 4. Plaintiff‟s hope that she might receive a “better response” in this district than she

23

has in the Eastern District towards her claims is not a proper basis for venue under § 1391(b).

13
14

24

United States Code § 1406 requires that “(a) The district court of a district in which is filed

25

a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of

26

justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” Thus,

27

because this case does not meet the venue requirements of § 1391(b) the court must either dismiss

28

the case, or, if in the interests of justice, transfer this case to the Eastern District of California.
2

1

Considering that Plaintiff has filed a plethora of cases in the Eastern District concerning

2

these same allegations, the court does not find that the interests of justice are served by

3

transferring the case to the Eastern District.

4
5

Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and the Motion for
Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED as Moot.

6

A separate judgment shall issue.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: March 4, 2016
______________________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TANYA GRACE MCDANIEL,

Case No. 16-cv-00414-NJV

Plaintiff,
8
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et
al.,
Defendants.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
That on March 4, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20

Tanya Grace McDaniel
P.O. Box 72272
Davis, CA 95617

21

22

Dated: March 4, 2016

23
24
25

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

26
27
28

By:________________________
Robert Illman, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable NANDOR J. VADAS
4