IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

LAMESHA TURNER, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1041-E-BK

§

TYLER SMITH COUNTY, §

DEFENDANTS. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United 

States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and 

applicable law, the complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to 

improper venue.

On May 9, 2022, Plaintiff Lamesha Turner, a resident of Dallas, Texas, filed a pro se

complaint against the City of Tyler and Smith County, Texas. Doc. 3 at 1. She also filed a 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4. Turner asserts that she was wrongfully convicted 

in Smith County Juvenile Court of an assault that never occurred. Doc. 3 at 1. She avers the 

school principal and school patrol officer lied to the authorities because she was also reporting an 

alleged sexual abuse by her custodial grandfather who was then employed at the school. Doc. 3 

at 1. 

Turner generally complains of civil rights violations. Doc. 3 at 2. Specifically, she 

contends that (1) the “Tyler juvenile” court “put false charges on my record that I have not been 

convicted of or pled guilty,” (2) the Texas Youth Commission failed to address her complaints of 

Case 3:22-cv-01041-E-BK Document 6 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 44
2

sexual assault, and (3) CPS violated her civil rights by keeping her in an abusive home and 

neglecting to assist her. Doc. 3 at 2. The attachments to the complaint confirm the events at 

issue occurred around 2004-to-2005 while Turner attended Lindale Highschool in Lindale, Texas 

(Smith County). Doc. 3 at 7. 

Venue in a civil case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which aims to place lawsuits in 

the judicial district most connected to the parties or the events giving rise to the action. 

Section 1391(b) provides that a civil action may be brought in:

(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents 

of the State in which the district is located; 

(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; 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 the court’s 

personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. 

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Based on Turner’s allegations, the events giving rise to her claims occurred in Smith 

County, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Texas, Tyler Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(1). Further, Turner does not assert that 

any acts or omissions occurred within the geographic region served by the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Texas. As such, venue is not proper in the Northern District of 

Texas.

When venue is not proper, a district court has the authority to dismiss the case or transfer 

it in the interest of justice to any district or division in which the action could have been brought. 

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the 

Case 3:22-cv-01041-E-BK Document 6 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 45
3

wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to 

any district or division in which it could have been brought.”). See Caldwell v. Palmetto State 

Savings Bank of South Carolina, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987) (concluding the district court 

has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss or transfer a case in the interest of 

justice). 

Here, a transfer to the appropriate district is not in the interest of justice. Considering the 

relative infancy of the case, the remoteness of the events at issue (occurring over 15 years ago), 

and Turner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court should apply its broad discretion to 

dismiss the complaint without prejudice to it being filed in the proper district. 

 Accordingly, Turner’s complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

SO RECOMMENDED on May 12, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-01041-E-BK Document 6 Filed 05/12/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 46