Peacemaker-El v. Krauss et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1406(a). An Order of Dismissal shall be filed with this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 1/11/22. (KJS)
Case: 4:22-cv-00005-AGF Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 1 of 4 PageID #: 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
LAURA KRAUSS, et al.,
No. 4:22-CV-5 AGF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a handwritten document tiled “Affadavit [sic] of Fact”
filed by self-represented Plaintiff Nizza Peacemaker-El.
ECF No. 1.
In this document, Plaintiff
names three defendants and complains about his conditions of confinement in a facility located
outside this judicial district.
The Court construes this document as a civil rights complaint
seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a
For the reasons discussed below, this case will be
dismissed for improper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a).
Plaintiff Nizza Peacemaker-El, also known as Nizza P. El and Orlando Preston, was
recently sentenced to thirteen months’ imprisonment due to violations of his conditions of
supervised release. See USA v. Sutton et al., No. 4:13-CR-143-CDP-4, ECF No. 1164 (Jan. 4,
2022). In the past two months, Plaintiff has filed four other civil cases in this Court, three of
which have already been dismissed. See El v. Pillow, No. 4:21-CV-1335-DDN (E.D. Mo. filed
Nov. 10. 2021 & dismissed Jan. 3, 2022); El v. Mattingly, No. 4:21-CV01357-SRW (E.D. Mo.
Case: 4:22-cv-00005-AGF Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 2 of 4 PageID #: 10
filed Nov. 16, 2021 & dismissed Jan. 3, 2022); El v. State of Mo., No. 4:21-cv-1450-ACL (E.D.
Mo. filed Dec. 6, 2021); El v. Woosley, No. 4:22-CV-18-NCC (E.D. Mo. filed Jan. 5, 2022 &
dismissed Jan. 7, 2022). The most recent dismissal was for lack of proper venue. See El v.
Woosley, No. 4:22-CV-18-NCC (E.D. Mo. dismissed Jan. 7, 2022).
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges unsanitary conditions of confinement, sexual harassment by a
jail employee, and inadequate medical treatment. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, it is not clear from
the complaint whether these alleged violations occurred at a detention center in Kentucky or at a
jail in Illinois. At the beginning of the complaint, Plaintiff describes the “Location” as “Mailing
Location” and the return address on the envelope states in part:
c/o Nizza Peacemaker-El
Randolph County Jail
200 West Buena Vista St.
Chester, IL 62233-1919
Grayson County Detention Center
320 Shaw Station Road
Leitchfield KY 42754
Id.; ECF No. 1-1. Furthermore, Plaintiff mentions in the complaint that he raised his grievances
with officials in “Randolph County.” ECF No. 1 at 3. All of this suggests that the complainedof violations allegedly occurred in the Randolph County Jail, located in Illinois.
On the other hand, Plaintiff also states in his complaint that his “Date of Entry to this
Facility [was] 12-23-2021” and the dates provided for the alleged violations are “12-13-2021,”
“12-15-201” and “12-20-2021.” Id. at 1, 6. This suggests that the allegations of Plaintiff’s
complaint occurred while he was held at the Grayson County Detention Center in Kentucky, prior
Case: 4:22-cv-00005-AGF Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 3 of 4 PageID #: 11
to a transfer to the Illinois facility. However, regardless of which facility Plaintiff is complaining
about, neither facility is located within this judicial district.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in: (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, any judicial district in which
any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff has alleged no basis for venue being proper in this Court.
Plaintiff makes no
allegation of an act or omission occurring within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court, nor
does Plaintiff allege that any of the defendants reside within this district.
requirements of § 1391 are present in this case.
None of the
Accordingly, venue in the Eastern District of
Missouri is not proper.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in a district where venue is not proper, the
District Court can either dismiss the action, or if it is in the interest of justice, the Court can transfer
the case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
In this case, the Court
cannot transfer this action because it is unclear what venue is proper based on the allegations of
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not filed his complaint on a court form; he has neither
paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and the allegations of the
complaint lack sufficient factual support to state a cognizable cause of action.
litigants are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
Case: 4:22-cv-00005-AGF Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/11/22 Page: 4 of 4 PageID #: 12
Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912,
914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the
self-represented plaintiff that assumed facts that had not been pleaded).
As such, the Court will
dismiss this action for lack of proper venue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1406(a).
An Order of Dismissal shall be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?