Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01565/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01565-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983vp Violation of Due Process and Equal Protection

---

1 

3:17-cv-01565-H-JMA

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

MARTIN SOUZA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

JAMES T. HARTNETT; PAUL 

CRIDEN; BLAS SERRANO; MICHAEL 

CAIN; NORA RILEY; GERI SMITH; the 

Hon. JAMES S. GWIN; DONALD 

LASTER; DURAN BANNER; 

VICTORIA WEBSTER; ROGER 

WILLIAMS; and FIDELITY ASSET 

MANAGER 50% FUND, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01565-H-JMA

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT 

FOR IMPROPER VENUE

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Martin Souza filed a pro se complaint for damages 

against several federal officers and employees. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 1, 2017, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

effectuate timely service of process. (Doc. No. 2.) See Civil Local Rule 4.1(b). On 

December 13, 2017, the Court also ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not 

be dismissed for improper venue. (Doc. No. 3.) The Court held a show-cause hearing on 

January 8, 2018, which Plaintiff attended. 

“A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States 

or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority . . . 

Case 3:17-cv-01565-H-JMA Document 7 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2 

3:17-cv-01565-H-JMA

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

may . . . be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, 

(B) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred . . . or 

(C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(e)(1). Plaintiff’s complaint does not allege that Defendants committed any 

wrongful action within this District. Moreover, none of the Defendants apparently reside 

in this District. Finally, Plaintiff admits that he lives in San Jacinto, Riverside County, 

California, which is located in the Central District of California. (Doc. No. 1.) See 

28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1).

The Court accordingly dismisses this action for improper venue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 8, 2018 

 

 MARILYN L HUFF, District Judge

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:17-cv-01565-H-JMA Document 7 Filed 01/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2