Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01118/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01118-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

RODNEY L. AMBROSE,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 04cv1118BEN (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Rodney L. Ambrose, proceeding pro se, has filed an employment discrimination action

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. Defendant has

moved to dismiss. For the reasons that follow, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. 

Title VII’s venue provisions specifically provides as follows:

[A Title VII] action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the

unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district

in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and

administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked

but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not found

within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in

which the respondent has his principal office.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to address why venue in this judicial district is

Case 3:04-cv-01118-BEN-RBB Document 31 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2 07CV0245

appropriate. The Plaintiff has not stated with any specificity what correlation the Southern District of

California has to his alleged claim, nor is the Court able to readily discern this information upon review

of the Complaint. 

Plaintiff must state with some specificity why venue in this judicial district is appropriate. 

“[L]eave to amend should be granted unless the district court ‘determines that the pleading could not

possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.’” United States ex rel. Lee v. SmithKline

Beecham, Inc., 245 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citation omitted). “This

approach is required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) which provides that leave to amend

should be freely granted when justice so requires.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

Dismissal with prejudice is only appropriate if it is clear that amendment cannot save the complaint. 

See Eminence Capital, LLC. v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

For the reasons stated above, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

Plaintiff shall have leave to amend his Complaint on or before October 31, 2007, in adherence with

this Order. Should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff is instructed to state with

specificity why venue in this judicial district is appropriate. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01118-BEN-RBB Document 31 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2