SMITH v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER, The Clerk shall reopen this case and file the complaint as plaintiff has paid the filing fee; ORDERED that pltf's 7 and 8 Motions for Reconsideration are denied; ORDERED that the Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 5/19/2014. (dmr)(n.m.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

WILLIAM SMITH,
Civ. No. 13-6770 (RBK) (KMW)

Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.
Defendants.

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix in Fort Dix,
New Jersey. He is proceeding prose with a complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Previously, the Court

administratively terminated this case as the docket did not reflect that plaintiff had either paid the
filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauper is.
As the Court noted in its May 16, 2014 Order, however, due to a clerical error,
plaintiff paid the filing fee twice as his original filing fee was not put on the docket in this case.
Therefore, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for the return of $400.00 due to this overpayment.
(See Dkt. No. 10.) In light of plaintiff's payment of the filing fee, the Clerk will be ordered to

reopen this case.
Presently pending before the Court are plaintiff's two motions for reconsideration.
He argues in both motions that the Court erred in administratively terminating his case as he had
sent in the applicable filing fee. These motions will be denied as unnecessary as the Court has
already granted plaintiff's motion for return of his $400.00 overpayment in light of the clerical
error noted in the May 16, 2014 Order, and the matter is being reopened.
1

Plaintiff brings this action against the United States of America, Robert E.
Richardson - Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, Martin Richie Federal Defenders Office Attorney of the District of Massachusetts, the Boston Police
Department, Sergeant Mary Crowley and Sergeant Darrin Greeley - investigators for the Boston
Police Department and John Scanlon - Probation Officer. His complaint focuses on the actions
of these defendants during his federal criminal proceedings that took place in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Typically at this point of the proceedings, the Court would review the complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). That section provides that the Court reviews the complaint to
determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b). However, before conducting that screening, the Court will first address the
threshold issue of whether venue is proper in this District. See Small v. Camden Cnty., 728 F.3d
265, 269-70 (3d Cir. 2013) (stating that issues of venue are threshold issues that courts must
address to determine whether litigation is being conducted in the right forum) (citations omitted);

Am. Fin. Res., Inc. v. Money Source, Inc., No. 14-1651, 2014 WL 1705617, at *6 (D.N.J. Apr.
29, 2014) (noting that issues of venue are threshold issues) (citation omitted).
Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code is the applicable venue statute and
specifically provides that:
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
2

occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the
subject of the action is situated; or
(3) ifthere 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff does not state where all of the defendants reside. However, it can
be assumed that the individual defendants most likely reside in Massachusetts. Additionally, the
actions of the defendants which plaintiff seeks the Court to examine all took place in the District
of Massachusetts. Therefore, the District of Massachusetts is the proper venue for this
complaint.
A district court may sua sponte transfer a case to a court of proper jurisdiction when
such a transfer is in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See Decker v. Dyson, 165
F. App'x 951, 954 n. 3 (3d Cir. 2006). This Court will then transfer this action to the District of
Massachusetts for further proceedings.
Accordingly, IT IS on this

r

day of_/Gl_~-------' 2014,

ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case and file the complaint as plaintiff
has paid the filing fee; and it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs motions for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 7 & 8) are
denied; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for such further proceedings as that court may deem
appropriate; and it is further
ORDERED that no summons shall issue in this action unless so directed by the transferee
3

court; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Memorandum Order on plaintiff by regular
U.S. mail.

)7u,lAA

/,Jy;}-

ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge

4