Jackson v. Federal Way Police Dept.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAURA LEAH JACKSON, Case No.: 24-CV-01616-CAB-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DISMISSING COMPLAINT 14 FEDERAL WAY POLICE DEPT., et al, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 15 Defendants. and 16 (2) DENYING MOTION TO 17 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 18 19 On September 10, 2024, Plaintiff Laura Leah Jackson filed a complaint against 20 Defendants San Diego Police Department, Officers Butts and Smith of the Federal Way 21 Police Department, and Sheriff Fry of the Seattle-Tacoma Sheriff’s Office.1 Plaintiff did 22 not prepay the civil filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) at the time of filing; instead, 23 she filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 24 [ECF No. 2]. For the reasons outlined below, this case is DISMISSED for improper venue 25 and the IFP motion is DENIED as moot. 26 27 28 1 I. Venue is Improper in the Southern District of California 2 A complaint filed by any person seeking to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3 1915(a) is subject to mandatory and sua sponte review and dismissal should the Court 4 determine, inter alia, it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief 5 may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 6 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”) 7 The Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue (the judicial district where this 8 lawsuit can be decided) may be raised by a court sua sponte (on its own) when the 9 defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. 10 Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Venue is proper in: 11 1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events 12 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property 13 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may 14 otherwise be brought. 15 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a case is filed in the wrong judicial district, the district court 16 “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 17 division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 18 Plaintiff has identified Defendants Officers Butts and Smith of the Federal Way 19 Police Department, and Sheriff Fry of the Seattle-Tacoma Sheriff’s Office, all three of 20 whom appear to be residents of Washington State. Given that Defendant San Diego Police 21 Department, which is in California, is not located in the same state as the other Defendants, 22 this lawsuit cannot be maintained in this District unless venue is improper elsewhere. See 23 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). 24 Venue is proper where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the 25 claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Though much of the complaint is difficult to 26 understand, Plaintiff’s factual allegations appear to be related to events that occurred in 27 King County, Washington, which is in the Western District of Washington. See Fed. R. 28 1 ||Evid. 201. Indeed, Plaintiff's claims appear to be based on Officers Butts and Smith 2 || allegedly (1) destroying Plaintiffs reputation with her boss and (2) unlawfully removing 3 Plaintiff from her own apartment in King County, Washington. [Compl. at 3.] 4 || Additionally, Plaintiff alleges an assault in Seattle, Washington by an unnamed party. 5 ||[Compl. at 6.] As such, venue may be proper in the Western District of Washington, where 6 || Plaintiff may choose to re-file. 7 II. Motion to Proceed IFP 8 Given that venue in the Southern District of California is improper for □□□□□□□□□□□ 9 || lawsuit, the Court declines to determine Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP at this time. As 10 such, Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as moot. 1] II. Conclusion 12 Plaintiff's complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 13 |}improper venue, and Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] is DENIED as 14 ||moot. Plaintiff may amend her complaint by October 17, 2024 and allege facts sufficient 15 || to provide venue in the Southern District of California or file her complaint in the Western 16 || District of Washington. 17 18 19 || Dated: September 26, 2024 € □ 20 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28