IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO 

JOSHUA RENE FLORES, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 22-cv-068 JCH-JFR 

 

LUBBOCK COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Joshua Rene Flores’ pro se Civil Rights 

Complaint (Doc. 1). Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Curry County Detention Center (CCCD) in 

New Mexico. He raises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Lubbock County Jail (the “Lubbock 

Jail”). According to Plaintiff, the Lubbock Jail detained him for six months even though he did 

not commit a crime. See Doc. 1 at 3. Lubbock sheriffs allegedly used a taser to arrest Plaintiff 

for failure to register as a sex offender. Id. at 5. The charges were dropped after Plaintiff 

presented evidence, but the Lubbock Jail never “paid [Plaintiff] back for those 6 months” of 

incarceration. Id. Plaintiff seeks $750,000 from the Lubbock Jail for false imprisonment. 

Before analyzing the merits, the Court will determine whether venue is proper in the District 

of New Mexico. Courts can evaluate venue on a motion by the parties or sua sponte, as part of 

the initial review process. See Johnson v. Christopher, 233 Fed. App’x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2007) 

(analyzing improper venue and noting “the district court has discretion” to evaluate the matter sua 

sponte). Section 1391 of Title 28 permits a civil action to be brought in: 

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides ...; 

(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; 

Case 5:22-cv-00049-H Document 3 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 15
2 

or 

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this 

section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to ... personal jurisdiction. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

 Subsection (1) does not apply. The Lubbock Jail is the only named Defendant. It is 

located in the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, and it is not clear this Court has 

personal jurisdiction over the Lubbock Jail. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2) (N.D. Texas includes 

Lubbock County); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) (for venue purposes, an entity resides in any district “in 

any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with 

respect to the civil action in question”). As to subsection (2), the Court must examine “the nature 

of the plaintiff’s claims and the acts or omissions underlying those claims” and determine whether 

“substantial events material to those claims occurred” in this district. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. 

Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). Accepting the allegations as true, the 

claims here bear no relation to New Mexico. Plaintiff was arrested, tased, and detained in 

Lubbock, Texas. The individual wrongdoers were either Lubbock sheriff deputies or Lubbock jail 

officials. Venue is therefore not appropriate under subsection (2). Finally, subsection (3) does 

not apply because Plaintiff can sue Defendant in Texas. 

Where, as here, venue is plainly improper, the Court may transfer the civil action to any 

other district “where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The following 

discretionary factors must weigh in favor of the transfer: 

the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, 

including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of witnesses; the cost 

of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is 

obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial; difficulties that may arise from 

congested dockets; the possibility of the existence of questions arising in the area of conflict 

Case 5:22-cv-00049-H Document 3 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 16
3 

of laws; the advantage of having a local court determine questions of local law; and[ ] all 

other considerations of a practical nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical. 

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010). The transfer 

must also be in the interest of justice; otherwise the matter should be dismissed without prejudice. 

To determine that, courts consider: “whether the claims would be time barred if filed anew in the 

proper forum, whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were 

filed in good faith....” In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). See also Faulkenburg 

v. Weir, 350 Fed. App’x 208, 210 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying the same factors to a venue transfer). 

On balance, the above factors favor a transfer rather than dismissal. The case could have 

been brought in the Northern District of Texas; all alleged wrongdoing occurred in that district; 

most evidence would come from Texas witnesses or agencies; and the only Defendant (Lubbock 

Jail) is located there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c); Doc. 1. The Court also finds a transfer is 

more appropriate than dismissal because it appears the claims were filed in good faith and may 

have merit. A venue transfer is therefore proper; convenient for the parties; and in the interest of 

justice. The Court will transfer this matter - including the Complaint (Doc. 1) and the associated 

in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 2) - to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas, Lubbock Division. The Court will also direct the Clerk’s Office to administratively 

terminate the motion appearing on this docket (Doc. 2), as it is no longer pending in this District, 

and close the civil case. 

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall TRANSFER this case, including Joshua 

Rene Flores’ Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 1) and pending Motion to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 2), to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock 

Division. 

Case 5:22-cv-00049-H Document 3 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 17
4 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall TERMINATE the pending 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2), as it appears on this docket, and CLOSE this case. 

 _______________________________________ 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:22-cv-00049-H Document 3 Filed 03/24/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 18