Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01778/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01778-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

- 1 - 07cv1778

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUSTICE ALEXANDRIA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1778 JLS (JMA)

ORDER (1) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF

VENUE WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

(2) DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS AS MOOT, & (3)

DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL AS MOOT

(Doc. Nos. 1, 2, & 3)

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

AMTRAK POLICE, CHRISTOPHER BEST

Defendants.

Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1), motion to appoint counsel

(Doc. No. 2), and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 3). Because Plaintiff

moved to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff has not served the summons and complaint on the

Defendants. Therefore, Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading.

Where the defendant has not yet filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not

run, venue may be raised by a court sua sponte. Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.

1986). Because Plaintiff alleges federal constitutional violations, Plaintiff must bring this action "in:

(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State; (2) a

judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred

. . . or a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action

may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (1996); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co.

Case 3:07-cv-01778-JLS-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 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 - 07cv1778

v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986). A determination of improper venue

does not go to the merits of the case, and, therefore, any dismissal on this ground must be without

prejudice. In re Hall, 939 F2d 802, 804 (9th Cir. 1991).

 Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations arising out of events which allegedly took place in

Washington D.C. The only named defendants are alleged to reside in Washington D.C. Plaintiff’s

claims therefore arose in the District of Columbia rather than the Southern District of California. 28

U.S.C. § 84(d) (2007); Costlow, 790 F.2d at 1488; Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 842. Thus, if

Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this civil action, she should file it in the United States District for the

District of Columbia, subject to that district’s procedures governing in forma pauperis applications.

See 28 U.S.C. § 84 (2007).

Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for lack of venue without prejudice, DENIES

AS MOOT the motion to appoint counsel, and DENIES AS MOOT the motion for leave to proceed

in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2007

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01778-JLS-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2