Carr v. Eastland County Criminal Justice System et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera dismissing case without prejudice. (baw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JACQUES ALEXANDER CARR,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 1:24-cv-00957-JCH-SCY

EASTLAND COUNTY
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM and
ALAINA THOMPSON,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff is a citizen of New Mexico. See Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 at 1, Doc. 1, filed September 26, 2024 (“Complaint”). Defendants Eastland
County Criminal Justice System and Alaina Thompson are citizens of Texas. See Complaint at 1,
3. Plaintiff alleges Defendants made statements to Plaintiff, there were violations of Plaintiff’s
“civil, human, + constitutional rights,” Plaintiff was raped and Plaintiff “was in Eastland, TX
before here. The counts mentioned had occurred on my way here.” Complaint at 3.
United States Magistrate Judge Steven C. Yarbrough notified Plaintiff it appears that the
District of New Mexico is not the proper venue for this action. See Order to Show Cause at 2,
Doc. 4, filed September 27, 2024. The statute governing venue in general states:
Venue in general.--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 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). “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the
wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to
any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (emphasis
added).
Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interests of justice
include whether the claims would be barred by a statute of limitations if filed anew
in the proper forum, e.g. Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir.2000)
(citing Coleman v. United States, 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir.1997)), whether the
claims alleged are likely to have merit, e.g. Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150 (citing Phillips,
173 F.3d at 610), and whether the claims were filed in good faith or if, on the other
hand, it was clear at the time of filing that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction,
Trierweiler, 90 F.3d at 1544 (“[I]t is not in the interest of justice to transfer where
a plaintiff either realized or should have realized that the forum in which he or she
filed was improper.”).
Young v. State Government of Oklahoma, 98 Fed.Appx. 760, 763-764 (10th Cir. 2004).
Judge Yarbrough stated:
It appears that the Northern District of Texas is the proper venue for this action.
Defendants reside in, and it appears that a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Northern District of Texas. There
are no allegations indicating that any of the events or omissions giving rise to
Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the District of New Mexico.
Order to Show Cause at 3. Judge Yarbrough also notified Plaintiff: (i) it appears Plaintiff’s claims
may be barred by a statute of limitations because there are no allegations in the Complaint
indicating that any of the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s case occurred during the past two years
in Texas or during the past three years in New Mexico; (ii) It is not clear from the name “Eastland
County Criminal Justice System” what entity Plaintiff is asserting claims against and there are no
factual allegations showing that Eastland County Criminal Justice System is a suable entity;
(iii) The Complaint fails to state claims against Defendants because there are no other allegations
2

explaining what each Defendant did to Plaintiff, when and where each Defendant did it and what
specific legal rights Plaintiff believes each Defendant violated; and (iv) The Complaint does not
contain factual allegations showing that the Court has personal jurisdiction over nonresident
Defendants. See Order to Show Cause at 4-5. Judge Yarbrough ordered Plaintiff to show cause
why the Court should not dismiss or transfer this case and to file an amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause with a one-page Response and an Amended
Complaint that the Clerk’s Office docketed as one document. See Doc. 6 at 1, filed October 16,
2024 (“Response”). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which is dated September 17, 2024, nine
days before he filed his original Complaint, is identical to the original Complaint with the
following exceptions: (i) the original Complaint is not signed and is missing pages 5-6 of the form
“Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;” and (ii) the original Complaint contains
65 pages of documents that are not included with the Amended Complaint. See Doc. 6 at 2-7
(“Amended Complaint”).
The Response states: “The actions stated in my initial complaint occurred from Texas, +
other states, + New Mexico. . . It had occurred in New Mexico . . .the actions I want brought to
trial had still been in occurance [sic] when I had crossed state lines from Texas to New Mexico.”
Response at 1. The Amended Complaint, however, does not contain any factual allegations
showing that Defendants reside in New Mexico or that a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to the claim occurred in New Mexico. The Court concludes that the District of New
Mexico is not the proper venue for this action.
The Response does not address the issues of the statute of limitations, whether Defendant
Eastland County Criminal Justice System is a suable entity, the lack of allegations explaining what
each Defendant did to Plaintiff, when and where each Defendant did it and what specific legal

3

rights Plaintiff believes each Defendant violated, and whether the Court has personal jurisdiction
over nonresident Defendants. The Court finds that it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this
case to the Northern District of Texas because it does not appear that the alleged claims are likely
to have merit. The Court must, therefore, dismiss this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district
court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall
dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it
could have been brought.”) (emphasis added).
IT IS ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

_______________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4