JAMES v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARM, AND EXPLOSIVES (ATF) AGENCY et al

Filing 27

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - Based on the principles noted in Part I of this Entry, the plaintiff shall have through 7/30/2012, in which to (1) state a plausible claim against each of the defendants, and (2) identify the district(s) for the proper venue of this action insofar as the plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 38 (1971), and explain why propervenue lies in the district(s) identified. See Entry for details. Copy mailed to plf.. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/13/2012.(LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
KENYATTA TYRONE JAMES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF
)
ALCOHOL, TABACCO, FIREARM, AND )
EXPLOSIVES (ATF) AGENCEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:12-cv-50-TWP-DML

Entry Directing Further Proceedings
I.
A.
AA complaint must always . . . allege >enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.’” Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, Ill., 520
F.3d 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555 (2007)). AA claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). AA pleading
that offers >labels and conclusions' or >a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause
of action will not do.= Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders >naked assertion[s]=
devoid of >further factual enhancement.=@ Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557).
B.
When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper only in
the district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the
same state, (2) 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) any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may
otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

II.
Based on the principles noted in Part I of this Entry, the plaintiff shall have
through July 30, 2012, in which to (1) state a plausible claim against each of the
defendants, and (2) identify the district(s) for the proper venue of this action insofar
as the plaintiff asserts claims pursuant to the theory recognized in Bivens v. Six
Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 38 (1971), and explain why proper
venue lies in the district(s) identified.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/13/2012
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Kenyatta T. James
231675
North Point Training Center
P.O. Box 479
Burgin, KY 40310

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana