IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

ADAM PRUDHOMME, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1382-G-BN 

 § 

MARCUS MICHLES, ET AL., §

 § 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Adam Prudhomme, providing an address in Pensacola, Florida, 

initiated a pro se action in this district through a complaint titled In the First District 

Escambia County Clerk of Court(s) Florida’s Criminal & Civil Division | Weaving a 

Piece of Law 23 | The 22 | Run This 100% | [Dkt. No. 3]. Prudhomme’s allegations 

are difficult to decipher but included in them appears to be a warrant for his arrest, 

filed in Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for the County of Escambia, 

State of Florida, setting out that there is probable cause to arrest him for aggravated 

stalking, harass after injunction, in violation of Florida law. See id. at 10-14. 

Senior United States District Judge A. Joe Fish referred Prudhomme’s 

complaint to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial 

management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

Whatever Prudhomme’s claims may be, they do not belong in this judicial 

district. The undersigned therefore enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendation that the Court should dismiss this case without prejudice, for 

Case 3:22-cv-01382-G-BN Document 4 Filed 06/28/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 20
- 2 - 

improper venue, under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Venue is proper in the judicial district: (1) where the defendant resides; (2) 

where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; 

or (3) if there is no district where the action may otherwise be brought, in any judicial 

district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b). 

Prudhomme’s allegations do not support venue in this judicial district under 

this statute. 

And, “[w]hen venue is challenged,” Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013) – or, like now, when a district court raises 

the issue of venue sua sponte, see, e.g., Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 

761 (5th Cir. 1989) – “the court must determine whether the case falls within one of 

the three categories set out in § 1391(b). If it does, venue is proper; if it does not, 

venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a).” 

Atl. Marine Constr., 571 U.S. at 56. 

Section 1406(a) provides that “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed 

a case laying venue in the 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.” And it 

allows a transfer where the first forum chosen is improper due to the 

existence of some obstacle to adjudication on the merits. [Dubin v. 

United States, 380 F.2d 813, 816 (5th Cir. 1967).] The statute specifically 

refers to “laying venue in the wrong division or district,” but a transfer 

can be made due to the absence of personal jurisdiction in a district 

where venue is otherwise proper. See Bentz v. Recile, 778 F.2d 1026, 

Case 3:22-cv-01382-G-BN Document 4 Filed 06/28/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 21
- 3 - 

1028 (5th Cir. 1985).... [A] division or district may be “wrong” under 

Section 1406(a) when the original court lacks personal jurisdiction. Id.

Herman v. Cataphora, Inc., 730 F.3d 460, 466 (5th Cir. 2013); see also Goldlawr, Inc. 

v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 (1962) (“The language of § 1406(a) is amply broad 

enough to authorize the transfer of cases, however wrong the plaintiff may have been 

in filing his case as to venue, whether the court in which it was filed had personal 

jurisdiction over the defendants or not.”). 

“The district court has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss or 

transfer a case in the interest of justice under § 1406(a).” LSF4 Loan Invs. I, LLC v. 

Weingart, No. 3:06-cv-419-M, 2006 WL 2370803, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2006); see 

also Carter v. H2R Restaurant Holdings, LLC, No. 3:16-cv-1554-N-BN, 2016 WL 

4507459, at *4 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2016) (“[C]ourts have consistently understood that 

they have broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer or dismiss a case based on 

improper venue.” (collecting cases)), rec. accepted, 2016 WL 4494370 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 

26, 2016). 

Considering the substance of Prudhomme’s complaint, the interest of justice 

compels that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice under Section 1406(a). 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 

1406(a). 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

Case 3:22-cv-01382-G-BN Document 4 Filed 06/28/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 22
- 4 - 

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

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: June 28, 2022 

_________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01382-G-BN Document 4 Filed 06/28/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 23