Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00643/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00643-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELDA WILSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-643-H

(WVG)

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

IMPROPER VENUE

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,

Defendant.

On September 5, 2013, Defendant Department of the Army filed a Motion to

Dismiss Helda Wilson's Petition. (Doc. No. 8.) On October 29, the Court submitted

the motion on the parties' papers and vacated the hearing pursuant to its discretion

under Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). (Doc. No. 15.) The Court allowed Mr. Wilson until

November 6, 2013 to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Id.) Mr. Wilson did

not respond. For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's motion.

- 1 - 12cv260

Case 3:13-cv-00643-H-WVG Document 16 Filed 12/19/13 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

I. Background

Petitioner Helda Wilson is a Vietnam veteran. He was inducted into the Army

on February 3, 1968 and was discharged on October 3, 1969. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 17.) In

2011, Mr. Wilson sought to have his military records corrected to reflect a different pay

grade. (Id. at 9.) The Army Board for Correction of Military Records denied Mr.

Wilson's request. (Id.) On March 18, 2013, Mr. Wilson filed a Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court construed the

petition as requesting judicial review of the Board's decision. (Doc. No. 3 at 3.)

II. Legal Standard for Venue

The rules governing proper venue in federal actionsin which the defendant is an

officer or employee of the United States are set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). Under

this provision, venue is proper only in a district where:

(A) a defendant in the action resides;

(B) 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) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.

 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Once it is determined that venue is improper, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) states:

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 interest of justice,

transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been

brought.

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The decision whether to dismiss or transfer the action rests

entirely within the discretion of the trial court. Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488.

III. Discussion

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that the Court should dismiss Mr.

Wilson's Petition because venue is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

Venue in this district is improper. First, the Department of Defense does not

reside in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A). Instead, for purposes of venue,

the Department of Defense resides in the District of Columbia. See Airport Working

- 2 - 12cv260

Case 3:13-cv-00643-H-WVG Document 16 Filed 12/19/13 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

Group of Orange County, Inc. v. United States Dept. of Defense, 226 F. Supp. 2d 227,

228 (D.D.C. 2002).

Second, none of the events on which Mr. Wilson's petition is based occurred in

this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). Mr. Wilson's court martial convened in

Vietnam. (Doc. 1-1 at 15.) His discharge occurred at Fort Lewis, Washington. (Id. at

17.)

Finally, Mr. Wilson presently resides in Corcoran, California, where he is in

custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(C). That prison is located in Kings County,

which is in the Eastern District of California, and is Petitioner's residence for venue

purposes. See In re Pope, 580 F.2d 620, 622 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

When a court determinesthat venue isimproper, the decision whether to dismiss

or transfer the action rests entirely within that court's discretion. Costlow, 790 F.2d at

1488. The Court determines that under these circumstances, dismissal is more

appropriate than transfer. Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss. Because venue is improper in this district, Mr. Wilson may not refile here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 18, 2013

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 3 - 12cv260

Case 3:13-cv-00643-H-WVG Document 16 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 3