Greene v. Harris et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations; denying 8 Motion to Stay Case; denying 10 Request for Change of Venue. Plaintiff's claims, along with this case, are dismissed. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 3/13/2018. Mailed to pro se party Cedric Greene at 4852 St Elmo Dr. Apt 7, Los Angeles, CA 90019 by regular mail. (mam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 18-1026-JTM-KGG
TERRI HARRIS and VICKI BROACH,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), filed February 14, 2018 (Dkt. 6), recommending that the
court dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). The Magistrate
Judge notified plaintiff of his ability to file objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy of the R&R. On February 16, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to stay case (Dkt.
8). He also filed a document titled Declaration and Request for Change of Venue under
28 U.S.C § 1404(a) (Dkt. 10).
Having reviewed the R&R and plaintiff’s filings, the court finds that the
Magistrate Judge fully and accurately considered plaintiff’s claims and governing legal
authority. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he “was the victim of a ‘very serious
crime’ that almost ended his life.” (Dkt. 1, at 4). The crime occurred in Hot Springs,
Arkansas.

Plaintiff states that the person who committed the crime subsequently

-1-

returned to California “to avoid being arrested . . . .” Id. Neither defendant in this case
is the individual who allegedly committed the crime against plaintiff; rather,
defendants appear to be individuals involved in the resultant court proceedings in
Arkansas. Plaintiff does not state a viable claim against defendants.
Additionally, plaintiff’s assertions that other states have expressed zero interest
in resolving this matter and the District of Kansas is convenient because his spouse has
family in the Wichita area are insufficient to support personal jurisdiction or venue in
the District of Kansas. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“[T]he district court may dismiss under § 1915 only if ‘it is clear that [the plaintiff] can
allege no set of facts,’ . . . to support personal jurisdiction or venue.”). Notably, plaintiff
now requests that Kansas recuse itself because it is biased against plaintiff and requests
a change of venue (Dkt. 10). However, plaintiff fails to specify a court that would be
appropriate to transfer to. Therefore, the court adopts the R&R (Dkt. 6).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2018, that plaintiff’s
motion to stay case (Dkt. 8) and request for a change of venue (Dkt. 10) are denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims, along with this case, are
dismissed.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. THOMAS MARTEN, JUDGE

-2-