Iseli v. State of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a civil rights complaint filed by a state prisoner in the Southern District of California. The court dismissed the action sua sponte without prejudice because the plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status, and because venue was improper as all defendants reside and the events occurred in the Eastern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of complaint for failure to pay filing fee or file IFP motion“The Court dismisses his complaint because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and Ninth Circuit precedent. A prisoner cannot proceed without either paying the fee or obtaining IFP status. The order correctly cites Andrews v. Cervantes for the proposition that an action may not proceed without IFP leave if the fee is not paid. |
Dismissal of complaint for improper venue“The Court also dismisses this action because this Court is not the proper venue for his action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The complaint alleges defendants reside in San Joaquin County and events occurred in Stockton, California, which is in the Eastern District of California. The Southern District of California is not a proper venue under either the residence or events prong. The court correctly noted it could raise venue sua sponte under Costlow v. Weeks. |
Dismissal without prejudice and closure of case“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice refiling in the proper venue. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to CLOSE this case.” | agree with court Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy for failure to pay fees (which can be cured) and improper venue (which can be cured by refiling in the correct district). The order to close the case is consistent with the dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the two independent grounds for dismissal: failure to pay the filing fee/seek IFP status and improper venue. It cites the correct statutory provisions and binding Ninth Circuit precedent for both grounds. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a sua sponte dismissal at the filing stage. There are no significant gaps or errors in the application of law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON WILLIS ISELI, Case No.: 24cv0523-JO (DDL)
12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 Brandon Willis Iseli (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Pelican 21 Bay State Prison in Crescent City, California, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 22 U.S.C. § 1983. Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”). 23 The Court dismisses his complaint because Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee 24 nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews 25 v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishing that an action may proceed 26 despite a plaintiff’s failure to prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed 27 IFP). 28 The Court also dismisses this action because this Court is not the proper venue for | ||his action. A civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant 2 || resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located” or (2) “‘a 3 || judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 4 |lclaim” occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 5 || 1986). Here, Plaintiff's complaint alleges that all Defendants reside in San Joaquin County 6 || and that all the acts which violated his rights occurred in Stockton, California—also in San 7 || Joaquin County. See Compl. at 2. Because he neither alleges acts occurring within nor 8 || brings claims against defendants residing in the Southern District of California, venue is 9 proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488 (explaining that venue 10 ||may be raised by the Court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive 11 || pleading). 12 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this civil action sua sponte without prejudice 13 refiling in the proper venue. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to CLOSE this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Qe 17 18 Dated: August 13, 2024 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2