Memmott v. Manning et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 3/11/2025 TRANSFERRING this action, including the pending motion to proceed IFP, to the Western District of North Carolina. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KEZ) [Transferred from California Eastern on 3/12/2025.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ORION DOUGLAS MEMMOTT,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:24-cv-1395-TLN-CKD PS

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
BONNIE MANNING, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. §

19

636(b)(1). Proceeding without counsel, plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in

20

forma pauperis on May 16, 2024. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Before the complaint could be screened,

21

plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 23, 2024. (ECF No. 3.) On September 24,

22

2024 the court issued an order to show cause directing the plaintiff to address whether the action

23

should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North

24

Carolina. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff responded on October 10, 2024, requesting that the case not be

25

transferred. (ECF No. 5.) Because venue does not lie in this district, however, this action will be

26

transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

27

If a court determines the appropriate venue for a case lies in another division or district,

28

the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
1

1

division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Relatedly, “[f]or the

2

convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any

3

civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §

4

1404(a). Here, the plaintiff acknowledges that both named defendants are residents of North

5

Carolina and “[t]he real property which is the subject of this action is located at 2829 Long

6

Circle, Iron Station, North Carolina 28080.” (ECF No. 1.)

7

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial

8

district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the

9

district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

10

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action

11

is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in

12

this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal

13

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

14

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits a court’s ability to exercise

15

personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants. World–Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,

16

444 U.S. 286, 291 (1980). “Although a nonresident’s physical presence within the territorial

17

jurisdiction of the court is not required, the nonresident generally must have certain minimum

18

contacts... such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and

19

substantial justice.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 283 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

20

As set forth, neither of the defendants are residents of this district for the purpose of

21

determining venue. Further, the property that is the subject of the dispute is in North Carolina.

22

Finally, the complaint’s allegations do not establish that “a substantial part of the events or

23

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in this district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Although

24

plaintiff asserts that he received communications regarding the subject dispute in this district, that

25

is insufficient to establish venue in the Eastern District of California.

26

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may “transfer a case brought in the wrong

27

division or district” if it is “in the interest of justice” to do so. If a district court, in its discretion,

28

denies such a transfer, then the court must dismiss the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
2

1

Here, the defendants and the property which is the subject of the dispute are in the

2

Western District of North Carolina. Even if venue could lie in this district, the court finds that in

3

the interest of justice, the Western District of North Carolina is a more appropriate venue because

4

a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim took place within that forum. See 28

5

U.S.C. § 1404(a).

6

Therefore, the court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the

7

Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, 28

8

U.S.C. § 1404(a). In transferring this action, this court expresses no opinion regarding the merits

9

of plaintiff’s claims.

10

III. Conclusion and Order

11

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. The action, including the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is

13

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of North

14

Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, in the alternative, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
2. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 1

15
16

Dated: March 11, 2025
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20

CKDMemmott1395

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff is instructed to direct any filings or inquiries related to this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
3