Grant v. U.S. Department of Transportation et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment will be entered by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM LEE GRANT II,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:18CV246

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff filed his pro se Complaint on June 4, 2018 (Filing No. 1), and has been
given leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. 5). The court now conducts an
initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff’s Complaint consists of:
1.

A signed photocopy of an employment discrimination complaint he filed
in the Illinois Court of Claims on October 25, 2017, against the Office
of the Illinois Governor, with the following handwritten alterations:
A.

The U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of
Treasury are substituted as Defendants for the Illinois Governor.

B.

It is alleged that the Illinois Department of Transportation and
Department of Employment Security receive funding from these
federal agencies and are required to comply with federal laws.

2.

Four exhibits, which are photocopies of orders entered by other federal
courts, with certain handwritten notations:
A.

Text order entered by the United States District Court for the
Central District of Illinois on March 22, 2018, in Grant v. Illinois
Department of Employment Security, No. 3:18-cv-03054-CSBEIL, dismissing complaint on initial review, as frivolous.1

B.

Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the United States
District Court of the District of Maryland on May 16, 2018, in
Grant v. U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., Civil Action
No. GLR-18-1327, dismissing complaint on initial review, as
frivolous .

C.

Order entered by the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Virginia on April 30, 2018, in Grant v. United States
Department of Treasury, et al., Case No. 1:18cv457, dismissing
complaint with prejudice on initial review, as frivolous.

D.

Order entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit on February 21, 2018, in Grant v. United States,
Case No. 2018-1413, summarily affirming dismissal of complaint
filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims, Case No. 1:17cv-01785-LAS, for lack of jurisdiction.

1

The district court viewed Plaintiff’s complaint “as a continuation of Plaintiff’s
abuse of the pro se litigation process” because it “raise[d] irrational and wholly
incredible issues which have all been previously dismissed by this court.” Text Order
of March 22, 2018 (citing 11 previously dismissed cases).
-2-

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine
whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must
dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,2 or that seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
III. DISCUSSION
It is clear from the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint that the District of Nebraska
is not a proper venue. “Any civil action on a tort claim against the United States ...
may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein
the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). Plaintiff resides in
Springfield, Illinois, and no act or omission forming the basis for the Complaint is
alleged to have occurred in Nebraska.
If a plaintiff files a case in the wrong venue the district court “shall dismiss, or
if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which

2

Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[ ] their
claims across the line from conceivable to plausible,” or “their complaint must be
dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”). “The essential function of
a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party
‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of
the type of litigation involved.’” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d
843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.
1999)). Howeverer, “[a] pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se
litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d
at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
-3-

it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).3 Here, the court will dismiss the
case rather than unnecessarily burden the Central District of Illinois with another
frivolous lawsuit filed by Plaintiff.
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed
without prejudice for improper venue.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

2.

Judgment will be entered by separate document.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

3

A district court has the discretion to either dismiss a plaintiff’s claims or
transfer the case, sua sponte. Thompson v. Ault, No. 8:10CV240, 2010 WL 3733998,
at *2 (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2010) (citing cases).
-4-