Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04374/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-04374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

RONALD DAVID JONES,

Plaintiff,

VS. Case No. 4:16cv109-RH/CAS

GRAND CANYON UNIVERSITY,

Defendant.

____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF No. 1, and a motion seeking leave to

proceed with in forma pauperis status, ECF No. 2. In a separate Order

entered this day, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion has been granted.

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim for racial discrimination against

the Grand Canyon University. Plaintiff resides within the Northern District

of Florida, but Defendant is located in Phoenix, Arizona. ECF No. 1 at 1.

A civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which the

Defendant resides or (2) judicial district in which a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Case 2:16-cv-04374-DGC Document 5 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

It appears that the proper forum for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 82 is in the United States District Court, District

of Arizona, Phoenix Division as Defendant is located there and it is

assumed that Defendant’s actions took place there. 

A federal district court has the authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to

transfer a case to another district or division “in which it could have been

brought.” The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the court's ability to raise

the issue of defective venue sua sponte, but limited the court's ability to

dismiss an improperly filed case for lack of venue without giving the parties

an opportunity to respond. Lipofsky v. New York State Workers Comp.

Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating “a district court may

raise on its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal

jurisdiction; but the court may not dismiss without first giving the parties an

opportunity to present their views on the issue.”) The Lipofsky court did not

place the same limitations on the court's ability to transfer a case to the

appropriate forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Lipofsky, 861

F.2d at 1259, n.2. Thus, it is recommended that the case be transferred

rather than dismissed.

Case No. 4:16cv109-RH/CAS

Case 2:16-cv-04374-DGC Document 5 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

In light of the foregoing, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and

1406(a), it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be transferred to

the United States District Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix Division, for all

further proceedings.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 29, 2016.

 s/ Charles A. Stampelos 

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed

findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to

another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy

thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of

proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No. 4:16cv109-RH/CAS

Case 2:16-cv-04374-DGC Document 5 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 3