El v. Woosley

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 01/07/2022. (KCD)

Case: 4:22-cv-00018-NCC Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NIZZA P. EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
JASON WOOSLEY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:22-CV-18 NCC

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on six pages of documents filed by self-represented plaintiff
Nizza P. El.

These documents include: (1) a Court-form Notice Regarding Magistrate

Jurisdiction, on the caption of which he wrote his name as the plaintiff and Jailer Jason Woosley
as the defendant, and added the words “Criminal Complaint”; 1 (2) four pages of notebook paper
on which plaintiff hand-wrote his statement of the claim; and (3) a one-page Grayson County
Detention Center Grievance Form. ECF No. 1. The Court construes this filing together as a civil
rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jason Woosley. Upon review,
however, the Court finds this action should be dismissed for lack of proper venue.
Complaint
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Grayson County Detention Center (“GCDC”) in
Leitchfield, Kentucky. He alleges that on December 23, 2021, he was “removed from Randolph
County Jail located in the City of Chester[,] Ill[inois],” “placed in a van and cuffed,” and
transferred to GCDC. Plaintiff asserts his due process rights have been violated as follows:
In the body of the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction, plaintiff listed the following
names: “Capt James, Bo Thore J-2, Capt Dave J-80.” These names are not included in the caption of the
Notice, and plaintiff does not allege any facts concerning these persons in his filings. The Court finds
these persons are not named as defendants in this action.
1

Case: 4:22-cv-00018-NCC Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 9

(A) Property not being brought to me by Grayson County Deputies; (B) Violation
of not giving me my said medicine; (C) Violation of Affecting Interstate Commerce
by not giving Grayson County my Consent to Drive or Transport me across State
Line or County Line; (D) Officers kidnapped me placed me in leg iron and ankle
cuffs; (E) I was forced to be undressed and strip search[ed] for intake at Grayson
County by son [sic] Caucasian who I have not met.
ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff further asserts his constitutional rights have been violated at GCDC
because he was served inadequate meals, subjected to overcrowding in cells, exposed to cigarette
smoke, and denied medical care. Id. at 1-3. Plaintiff filed a Grievance form complaining about the
meals he was served on December 23 and 24, 2021. Id. at 5.
Plaintiff makes no factual allegations as to any actions taken by defendant Woosley, but
appears to request that Woosley be fined, incarcerated, or “sentenced to death.” Id. at 4.
Discussion
Plaintiff has alleged no basis upon which to conclude that venue lies in this Court. 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 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 court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such
action.” If venue is improper, the Court must either dismiss the action or, in the interest of justice,
transfer the action to the proper district. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff names Jason Woosley, Jailer at the Grayson County Detention Center located in
Leitchfield, Kentucky, as the sole defendant. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant Woosley
resides in the Eastern District of Missouri, and based on the assertions of the complaint, the Court
has no reason to believe he is a resident of Missouri. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). Additionally,
-2-

Case: 4:22-cv-00018-NCC Doc. #: 3 Filed: 01/07/22 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 10

plaintiff’s claims arise entirely from events which occurred in a facility located within the State of
Kentucky and presumably all the witnesses are located in Kentucky. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
None of the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case.
Therefore, venue in the Eastern District of Missouri is not proper and the Court will dismiss
this action as a result. 2 If plaintiff wishes to bring a claim against defendant Woosley, such an
action should be filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, the
district in which GCDC is located. See 28 U.S.C. § 97(b).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack
of proper venue.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

A separate Order of Dismissal will be entered

herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 7th day of January, 2022.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

The Court finds it would not be in the interest of justice to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a) because the allegations are not drafted on a Court-provided form, plaintiff has not paid the
required filing fee or submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and the factual allegations presented
are devoid of sufficient facts against the named defendant to support a claim for relief. Self-represented
litigants are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. 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).
2

-3-