Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02596/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02596-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2596

___________

Raymond Damon Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

U.S. Department of Justice; Drug *

Enforcement Administration; John * [UNPUBLISHED]

Does, sued as Does 2-99; Joseph *

Walbran; Thomas Heffelfinger; *

John Ashcroft, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: March 28, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) claim. On appeal, Smith challenges the district

court’s decision to dismiss rather than transfer his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

(when case is filed in improper venue, district court “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”). 

Appellate Case: 05-2596 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292678
-2-

When Smith filed his December 2003 complaint, he was incarcerated in the

Sherburne County Jail in Elk River, Minnesota. The complaint stated that Smith was

a citizen of California, but provided no other information as to Smith’s residency.

Smith later notified the district court that he had been transferred to a federal

correctional facility in Adelanto, California, but again offered no details as to his

permanent residency. The magistrate judge concluded that dismissal rather than

transfer was appropriate because the magistrate judge was unable to discern Smith’s

district of residence, the record did not reveal the location of the documents at issue,

and the court did not wish unilaterally to impose the District of Columbia as a venue

upon Smith. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) (venue is proper for FOIA claim in district

where claimant resides, in district where agency records are situated, or in District of

Columbia). In his objections to the magistrate judge’s report, Smith provided a street

address in Los Angeles, California, as his permanent residence address and requested

that the case be transferred to the Central District of California. The district court

summarily adopted the magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the action without

prejudice.

We find it troubling that the district court summarily adopted the

recommendation to dismiss: the recommendation was based primarily on an inability

to determine Smith’s residence or desired venue for transfer, but Smith then provided

in his objections that very information. We therefore remand for the district court to

determine whether transfer to the Central District of California is warranted, given that

the necessary information is now in the record, and that Smith, as a pro se litigant,

made a simple mistake in filing in an improper venue. See Kerobo v. Sw. Clean

Fuels, Corp., 285 F.3d 531, 533 (6th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard of

review).

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2596 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2007 Entry ID: 3292678