JOHNSON v. REID

Filing 5

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 9/12/2024. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN FRINK WOLF. (CSA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
JASON REID,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:24-cv-00301-NT

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Because I granted Robert W. Johnson’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, see Order (ECF No. 4), his complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before me for
preliminary review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
As far as can be discerned from Johnson’s vague and disjointed complaint,
Jason Reid, a New York corporation, unlawfully discriminated against him by failing
to renovate his Syracuse, New York, apartment. Complaint at 2, 4. Johnson seeks
several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 5.
The obvious problem with Johnson’s complaint is that he fails to allege any
facts demonstrating that venue lies properly in the District of Maine. Indeed, by all
appearances, both parties are residents of New York, and the actions giving rise to
the instant claims took place entirely outside of Maine. Id. at 2, 4; see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b) (providing that a civil action generally may be brought in “a judicial district
in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which
the district is located” or “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events
1

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred”).
This Court has the authority under section 1915 to dismiss this case without
prejudice for improper venue because “the defense is obvious from the facts of the
complaint.” Johnson v. Christopher, 233 F. App’x 852, 853 (10th Cir. 2007). Although
this Court also has the authority to transfer this case to the proper venue (seemingly
the Northern District of New York) if the interests of justice would be served by such
a transfer, see 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), I recommend that it decline to do so because the
case was filed in an obviously improper venue and there is no reason to believe that
any injustice would result from a dismissal without prejudice, see Johnson,
233 F. App’x at 854 (affirming a district court’s dismissal of a case without prejudice
where the case was brought in “an obviously improper venue” and there was “no
reason to believe that an injustice” would “result from the dismissal as opposed to a
transfer”); Edwards v. Fresh Foods, LLC, No. 1:22-cv-285, 2022 WL 18859548, at *2
(E.D. Tenn. Dec. 14, 2022) (holding similarly).
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Johnson’s complaint
without prejudice.

NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
2

Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: August 29, 2024
/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge

3