Taylor v. Smith

Filing 4

ORDER of Dismissal. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/9/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEITH DESMOND TAYLOR, Plaintiff, 8 9 Case No. 17-cv-00809-EMC ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. Docket No. 1 10 Defendant. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 MICHAEL SMITH, 13 Plaintiff, an inmate on death row at San Quentin State Prison, filed this action under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 against the judge who presided over his death penalty case in San Bernardino 15 County Superior Court in 1996. Plaintiff alleges that Judge Smith erroneously allowed certain 16 fingerprint evidence at the trial in 1996. Plaintiff requests damages and release from custody. 17 Docket No. 1 at 3. 18 The complained-of events and omissions occurred in San Bernardino County, which is 19 located within the venue of the Central District of California. The only defendant apparently 20 resides in San Bernardino County. No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or 21 omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in, the Northern District of California. Venue 22 therefore would be proper in the Central District, and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 23 The court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer” an action that has been filed 24 in the wrong venue. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This is the third time Plaintiff has filed an action 25 against Judge Smith for alleged errors in the trial in San Bernardino County Superior Court. In the 26 first action against Judge Smith, Taylor v. Smith, et al., N. D. Cal. No. 09-cv-3009 MMC, the 27 claims against Judge Smith were dismissed as filed in the wrong venue and without prejudice to 28 Plaintiff filing an action in the Central District. The second action against Judge Smith, Taylor v. 1 Smith, N.D. Cal. No. 13-cv-4550 EMC, was dismissed as filed in the wrong venue, with an 2 explanation that transfer was not appropriate since Plaintiff already had been informed that the 3 Central District, rather than the Northern District, of California was the proper venue for his 4 claims. In light of the earlier orders explaining that the Northern District is not the correct venue 5 for an action against Judge Smith, there was no reason for Plaintiff to repeat his mistake. It is not 6 in the interest of justice to transfer this action because it unnecessarily consumes limited judicial 7 resources for the transferring court to process a case filed by a plaintiff who knowingly files his 8 case in the wrong district. 9 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED because it was filed in the wrong venue. This dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing his claims in the Central District of California. 11 The Clerk shall close the file. 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 17 Dated: June 9, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 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?