Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00035/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0035-denyIFP&venue-dsm.wpd 1 11cv0035

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOM SMITH, CDCR #AE-7059,

aka ALLEN CARSON WEATHERS, 

Civil No. 11-0035 DMS (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

FOR LACK OF PROPER 

VENUE PURSUANT TO

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

AND § 1406(a)

[Doc. No. 2]

 vs.

U.S. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF LOS

ANGELES; STATE OF CALIFORNIA;

CDC MENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS;

STATE OF CALIFORNIA JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT; HONORABLE JUDGES;

PATTON STATE HOSPITAL; and

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, and currently incarcerated at California State

Prison, Los Angeles County (CSP-LAC), in Lancaster, California, has submitted a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

While difficult to decipher, it appears Plaintiff seeks to challenge the validity of a 1994

Los Angeles County conviction, subsequent civil commitment proceedings in Los Angeles

County Superior Court in 2004, and a separate San Bernardino County criminal conviction in

“2008-2010” related to a murder at Patton State Hospital. See Compl. at 2-4. Plaintiff also

claims to have been “stripped,” “maced” and “beaten” by unidentified San Bernardino County

Case 3:11-cv-00035-DMS-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/14/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0035-denyIFP&venue-dsm.wpd 2 11cv0035

Sheriff’s Department deputies on June 18, 2010, id. at 5, and denied medical treatment at CSPLAC after he was the victim of a battery on October 15-16, 2010. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive relief preventing Defendants from “taking retaliation,” charging restitution and

denying him medical “hygiene” and “medical marijuana.” Id. at 7. Plaintiff further requests to

be released from custody, awarded $100 trillion in compensatory damages from Patton State

Hospital and $100 billion in punitive damages from the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation. Id. 

Plaintiff has not paid the $350 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence

a civil action; instead he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2].

I.

VENUE

An initial review of this action reveals that Plaintiff’s case lacks proper venue. Venue

may be raised by a court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading

and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986).

“A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except

as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (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 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) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d

834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). “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 interests of justice, transfer such

case to any district in or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Here, Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations arising in both Los Angeles and San

Bernardino Counties–both of which are situated in the Central District of California. See 28

U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), (2). And while Plaintiff names the State of California, all “Honorable Judges

Case 3:11-cv-00035-DMS-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/14/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that should he elect to proceed by filing his Complaint and

submitting a Motion to Proceed IFP in the Central District of California, his claims as currently pleaded

are likely to be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. See Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only

permits but requires” the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state

a claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing similar screening

procedure required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding

that “when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and

the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release . . . his sole federal remedy

is a writ of habeas corpus.”); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994) (damages claims brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which “necessarily imply” the invalidity of a conviction or sentence are

not cognizable unless plaintiff alleges that conviction or sentence has already been invalidated on direct

appeal or via habeas corpus); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 (9th Cir. 1988) (state judges

are absolutely immune from damages actions based on “judicial acts taken within the jurisdiction of

their courts.”); Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 123-25 (1997) (state prosecutors are entitled to

absolute prosecutorial immunity for acts taken in their official capacity); and P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer

Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the

State and its agencies).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0035-denyIFP&venue-dsm.wpd 3 11cv0035

of the State Courts only” and “all involved CDC Mental Health Officers” as Defendants, no

named individual is alleged to reside in San Diego or Imperial Counties and no claim is alleged

to have arisen–or have any connection to–the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 84(d) (“The Southern District [of California] comprises the counties of San Diego and

Imperial.”).

Thus, the proper venue for this action is the Central District of California, Eastern or

Western Divisions, but not the Southern District of California.1

 See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1), (2);

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

II.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] is DENIED this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of proper

venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1406(a). 

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: January 14, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00035-DMS-CAB Document 3 Filed 01/14/11 Page 3 of 3