Bordock v. Poteau, City of
Filing
4
ORDER Transferring Case to the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/11/2014. (mb) [Transferred from okwd on 9/11/2014.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LAURIE BORDOCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF POTEAU,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-14-960-D
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed this action in the Western District of Oklahoma, seeking
damages for alleged violations of her civil rights by the City of Poteau, Oklahoma. Plaintiff asserts
claims based on events occurring in Poteau, Oklahoma, located in LeFlore County. In the civil
cover sheet accompanying her Complaint, Plaintiff identifies LeFlore County as her place of
residence. She also filed a Notice of Change of Address [Doc. No. 3] which identifies her current
place of residence to be in Poteau, Oklahoma. The Complaint contains no allegations against any
resident of the geographical area comprising the Western District of Oklahoma, nor does it allege
that any act or omission underlying Plaintiff’s claims occurred within this district or involved any
property located here.
Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1391, a civil action may be brought only in certain judicial districts.
The statute 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 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)(1)-(3). In this case, no defendant resides in this judicial district, and the
allegations are based on occurrences in LeFlore County, located in the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
There is no contention that the claims involve property located in this judicial district. Accordingly,
the Complaint shows that venue is improper in the Western District of Oklahoma.
Where the Court concludes upon review of the Complaint that venue is improper, it “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). Where, as here, the defendant has not yet been
served, the Court may, in lieu of dismissal, sua sponte transfer the action pursuant to § 1406(a), if
doing so is in the interest of justice. Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222 -1223 (10th Cir.
2006).
The Court concludes that, rather than dismissing this case and requiring Plaintiff to file it
in the proper forum, transfer to the Eastern District of Oklahoma is proper. Plaintiff has also filed
a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and this matter should also be decided by the
transferee court.
Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to take the necessary action to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of September, 2014.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?