Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01371/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01371-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS

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

TIMOTHY DOYLE YOUNG,

BOP #60012-001, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS

ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL 

ACTION FOR LACK OF 

PROPER VENUE PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) 

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) AND FOR 

FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEES 

REQUIRED BY 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)

Timothy Doyle Young (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary 

Max ADX in Florence, Colorado, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil complaint in 

this Court against the United States. See Compl., ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff claims the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), unidentified BOP 

employees at USP Max ADX, the Department of Justice, United States Judges and 

Magistrate Judges in the District of Colorado, the Tenth and D.C. Circuit Courts of 

Appeals, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the General Counsel and Clerk of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, have all prevented his access to court as the 

result of a criminal conspiracy against him. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1, 3-9.

///

Case 3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS

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

Plaintiff has not paid the $400 civil and administrative filing fee required by 28 

U.S.C. § 1914(a), nor has he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the 

United States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of 

$400. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).1 An action may proceed despite a plaintiff’s failure to 

prepay the entire fee only if he is granted leave to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. 

Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff has not prepaid the $400 in filing and administrative fees required to 

commence this civil action and he has not filed a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). In fact, Plaintiff is no longer entitled to IFP status due to his 

abusive litigation history in federal district courts across the country. See Young v. United 

States, 88 Fed. Cl. 283, 290-291, 293 (2009) (reviewing Plaintiff’s “repetitive,” 

“frivolous” and “malicious” filings and directing the Clerk of Court to screen future 

submissions because “Mr. Young has made himself an example of the type of plaintiff 

Congress was trying to address when it enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1915[(g)].”); see also Young v. U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 19-CV-03373-WHO 

(PR), 2019 WL 2996382, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2019) (“Plaintiff also maliciously and 

purposely has filed actions in other federal courts knowing, as demonstrated in the cited 

cases below, that venue is not proper.”) (citations omitted). Therefore, his case cannot yet 

proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051.

 

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative 

fee of $50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court 

Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. June. 1, 2016). The additional $50 administrative fee does 

not apply to persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS

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

II. Venue

Upon initial review, this Court, like many others, also finds 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). 

Section 1391(b) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code provides, in pertinent part, that a 

“civil action may be brought in–(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if 

all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; [or] (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[.]” 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 or division in which it could have been 

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations committed by various federal actors and 

entities based on allegations that they have criminally conspired to block his access to 

courts from USP Florence ADMAX, an administrative security federal penitentiary, 

located in Colorado. See Compl., ECF No. 1 at 1-2; 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado 

constitutes one judicial district.”). No defendants are alleged to reside in, and no act or 

omission giving rise to Plaintiff’s injuries is alleged to have occurred in either San Diego 

or Imperial County. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d) (“The Southern District of California 

comprises the counties of Imperial and San Diego.”).

Therefore, venue properly lies in the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 85, but not in the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). See 28 

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

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS

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

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action sua sponte without prejudice 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to pay the $400 filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), his 

failure to file a Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and for lack of 

proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a).1

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2019

 

1 The Court elects to dismiss this case on venue grounds rather than to waste any additional 

resources by transferring it the District of Colorado’s docket. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 

1301, 1304-05 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting court has discretion to determining whether to 

transfer or dismiss an action for improper venue); Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of 

Commerce, Inc., 705 F.2d 1515, 1523 (9th Cir. 1983) (“Justice would not ... [be] served 

by transferring Wood’s claims back to a jurisdiction that he purposefully sought to avoid 

through blatant forum shopping.”).

Case 3:19-cv-01371-GPC-AGS Document 2 Filed 09/04/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4