Levesque v. State Vermont

Filing 5

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered denying 1 Motion to Change Venue. This action is DISMISSED without assessment of the filing fee (PSSA, 4)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ANDRE LEVESQUE,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF VERMONT, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 16-12545-LTS

ORDER ON MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (DOC. NO. 1)
January 11, 2017
SOROKIN, D.J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion to change venue.
I.

BACKGROUND
On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Andre Levesque (“Levesque”), a prisoner in custody at

FMC Devens awaiting a civil commitment determination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246,
submitted for filing his self-prepared Motion to Change Venue. See Docket No. 1. Levesque
seeks to transfer to the District of Massachusetts a case that was dismissed by the District of
Vermont in 2014. See Levesque v. State of Vermont, et al., No. 12-159 (D. Vt. Dec. 8, 2014)
(motion to reopen denied May 11, 2016), appeal dismissed, No. 16-1638 (2d Cir. July 13, 2016).
In the instant motion, Levesque alleges, among other things, that his transfers to various
correctional facilities have impeded his access to the courts. He explains that he is “now
detained as a hostage [because] federal employees [have] petitioned the court for a civil
commitment.” He seeks to have this court “adopt” the complaint that he filed in the District of
Vermont and allow him to pursue the 2012 lawsuit that he filed against those who are
responsible for his “distress, irreparable harms, pain suffering and [slander and defamation] of
character.”

II.

DISCUSSION
Under federal law, a civil action may be brought in a judicial district that falls into one of

three categories: "(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are
residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which 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) if there is no district in which an action may
otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is
subject to the courts personal jurisdiction with respect to such action." See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
Although the clerk assigned a civil action number to Levesque’s motion to change venue,
the court is unable to grant Levesque the relief he seeks. His 2012 lawsuit was closed in 2014
and his motion for reconsider was denied earlier this year. Accordingly, Levesque’s motion to
change venue is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. In view of the dismissal, the Court
need not address the failure of Levesque to pay the filing fee for this action or seek a waiver
thereof. Moreover, the Court takes no view on whether Levesque may institute a new action in a
judicial district with proper venue over his claims.
III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby Ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue

(Docket No. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED without assessment of the filing fee.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin_________
Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2