A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay17,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT RA YM OND HE RS CH E L J OHNS ON, S R ., P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. DR. S I M ENA CHRI S TOP HER; DR. FLOY D; a n d DR . J AY KH AR L, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 7011 ( D . C . N o . C I V - 0 6 - 4 8 2 - R A W)

(E .D . O k la .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. R aym ond J ohns on, an i nm at e i n the cus t odyof the O kl ahoma D epart m ent of C orr ect i ons , fi l ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n the U ni t ed S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a . W h ile d ifficu lt t o d isc e rn th e n a tu re o f

h is c laim , as b e st w e c a n tell M r. Jo h n so n d o e sn ’t a g re e w ith O kl ahoma pr i s on m edi cal s t aff w ho cont i nue t o deem hi m i ncompet entt o s t andA ft erthe di s tr i ctcourtfi l ed i t s or derdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai nt , i tent er ed 1 j udgm entagai ns tM r . J ohns on, s t at i ng, “[ c ] as e di s m i s s ed bec aus e pr opervenue d o e s n o t li e in th e E a ste rn D istric t o f O k lah o m a .” D o c k e t E n try1 0 (Ju d g m e n t in a C ivil C ase , F eb . 2 , 2 0 0 7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A co u rt ’s dism issal of the e n ti re act i on, even i f t erm ed a di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce, i s a “f i nal deci s i on” fort he p u rp o s e s o f

2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d th u s w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r t h is a p p e a l. See Moya v. Schol l enbarger , 4 6 5 F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 4 8 -4 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ [ I]n th is ci r cui t , ‘ w hetheran or derof di s m i s s al i s appea l abl e’ gener al l ydepends on ‘ w hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the c o mp la in t ort he act i on . A di s m i s s al of the compl ai nti s or di nar i l ya non- fi nal , nonappea l abl e or der( s i nce a m endment w o u ld g e n e ra llyb e a v a ilab le) , w h ile a d ism iss a l o f th e e n tire a c tio n is o rd in a rily fi nal . ’ ” ( quot i ng Mobl ey v . McC or m i ck , 4 0 F . 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 3 9 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ))) . - 2 - tr i al . T he r el i ef he s eeks , how ever , i s abundant l ycl ear , i m m edi at e r el eas e and t en m illio n d o lla rs in d a m a g e s . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the ca s e su a sp o n te fori m pr opervenue pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1406( a) & 1391( b) . T he di s tr i ctcour tdi d s o aft er o b se rv in g th a t M r. Jo h n so n is in c a rc e ra ted a t th e O k lah o m a F o re n sic C e n ter in V i ni t a, O kl ahoma, a fa ci l i tyl ocat ed i n the N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma; al l of the defendant s l i kew i s e ar e ci t i zens w i thi n the N or thern D i s tr i ct ; and al l of the e v e n ts a lleg e d o c c u rre d th e re . S im p lyp u t, th e d istric t co u rt fo u n d n o b a sis w h atso ev er fo r ve n u e in th e E astern D istri ct. W h il e d ism issi n g M r. Jo h n so n ’s s ui t , the di s tr i ct court emphasi zed that i t s di s m i s s al w as w i thout pr ej udi ce and 1 id e n tifie d fo r M r. Jo h n so n th e N o rth e rn D istric t as th e a p p ro p ria te ju risd ictio n to hear hi s com plai nts .M r . J ohns on al s o fi l ed a s epar at e documents ty l ed “W r i tof M ondane- 2 Pr ohabi tum ” i n t hi s court . T he C l erk di s m i s s ed w hats he t ook t o be an a p p lica tio n fo r a w rit o f m a n d a m u s fo r fa ilu re to p ro se c u te b u t in d ica ted th a t th is p a n e l w o u ld c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f M r. Jo h n so n ’s a p p lica tio n a s p a rt o f th is a p p e a l. See M ay2, 2007 O r der , N o. 07- 7019. A ccor di ngl y , w e tr eatt he m aterial s in tha t sep ara te ca se fil e a s if theyw ere fil ed in the m att er n o w b efo re us. E ven though i m pr opervenue i s an affi r m at i ve defens e thatm aybe

3 w a iv e d , w e h a v e lo o k e d to th e p u rp o se s o f S e c tio n 1 9 1 5 (e ) a n d d e ter m in e d th a t it is ne v erthe less p rop er fo r a d istri ct co u rtto d ism iss a ca se w h ere the “ ‘claim ’s fac tual backdr op cl ear l ybeckons t he defens e. ’ ” Tru jil lo , 465 F. 3d at1217

(c o n tin u e d ...) - 3 - M r . J ohns on appea l s t o us ar gui ng, i n es s ence , thatthe di s tr i ctcour terr ed by fai l i ng t o render a decis i on on the m eri t s of his case. C on strui ng his pro se 2 filin g s lib e ra lly, a s w e a re c o n s tr a in e d to d o , s ee Andre w s v. Heaton , __ F. 3d __, 2007 W L 1180423, at*3 ( 10th C i r . A pr . 23, 2007) , w e under s t and M r . J ohns on as chal l engi ng t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s s ui ti n l i eu of tr ans ferr i ng i tt o t he N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma. I n as s es s i ng s uch a c hal l enge, w e ar e obl i ged t o begi n byacknow l edgi ng a dis tri ctcou rt ’s authori tyun der 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) t o d i sm i ss su a sp o n te cas es n o t m e re ly o n th e irm e ri ts b u t a ls o b a s e d u p o n im p ro p e r v e n u e . Truj i l l o v. Wi l l i a ms , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h is p ro c e d u re is a p p ro p ria te w her e “the defens e i s obvi ous fr om t he fa ct s of the compl ai ntand no further fac tual r ecor d i s r equi r ed t o be deve l oped, ” and “ onl yi f i ti s cl eart hatt he pl ai nt i ff c an al l ege no s etof fa ct s t o s uppor t. . . venue. ” Id . (i nternal quotat i on s, ci t at i on, and al t er at i on om i t t ed) . W e have no doubtthatt hes e condi t i ons and 3( . . . cont i nued) 3 ( quot i ng Fr at us v. D eLand , 4 9 F .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 )); s ee als o i d. at 1 2 1 6 . - 4 - r at i onal es ar e mether e. V enue i s cl ear l yi nappr opr i at e i n the East ern D i s tr i ct b e c a u se n o d e fe n d a n t re sid e s in th e E a ste rn D istric t an d n o e v e n ts w e re a lleg e d to h a v e ta k e n p la c e in th e E a s te rn D is tr ic t. See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 9 1 (b ). T o b e sure, t he d i stri ctcou rthad the d i scr et i on no ton l yt o d i sm i ss butal so to tr a n s fe r M r. J o h n s o n ’s c a s e . See D oer i ng ex r el . B ar r et tv. C opperMtn. , Inc. , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 9 n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ T h e d istric t co u rt h a d th e a u th o rity ei thert o di s m i s s ortr ans ferthe ca s e fori m pr opervenue orl ack of per s onal ju risd ictio n .”). B u t S e c tio n 1 4 0 6 (a ) in d ica tes th a t th e d istric t co u rt “ sh a ll di s m i s s ” a c as e fi l ed i n an i nappr opr i at e venue unl es s i tfi nds the i nt er es t s of j us t i ce w oul d be s erved bytr ans fer . T he di s tr i ctcour tevi dent l ydi d notfi nd t hat r equi s i t e met , and w e r evi ew i t s concl us i on on thi s s cor e forabus e of di s cr et i on. C f. B a lles ter o s v . A sh c ro ft , 452 F. 3d 1153, 1160 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( appl y i ng s epar at e venue r egul at i on) ( “I n ci vi l cas es , the ques t i on of w hethera l i t i ganthas br oughtan ac t i on i n the pr opercour ti s a ques t i on of l aw , w hi l e the ques t i on of w hethert o di s m i s s ort r ans feran ac t i on fi l ed i n an i m pr opervenue i s w i thi n the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s o u n d d is c re tio n a n d re v ie w e d fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n o n ly.” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) . I n the fa ct s and ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, w e di s cern no s uch abus e gi ven that the s u itw as fil ed in su ch an o b v iou slyim p rop er v en u e. A d d it ion all y , M r.- 5 -

J ohns on offe r s us no r eas on t o bel i eve thatan i nj us t i ce w i l l r es ul tfr om the di s m i s s al as oppos ed t o a tr ans ferby , s ay , oper at i on of a s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons u p o n h is c la im s . See ge ner al l y G oldl aw r, Inc. v. Hei m an , 369 U . S. 463, 466 ( 1962) ( poi nt i ng t o l os s of “a s ubs t ant i al par tof [pl ai nt i ff’ s ] caus e of a ct i on under the s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ” as “a typi cal exampl e of the pr obl em [C ongr es s ] s ought t o [avoi d] ” i n enac t i ng § 1406) . I ndeed, M r . J ohns on, al bei tact i ng pro se , o ffers us no r eas on w hat s oevert hatt he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n di s m i s s i ng the ca s e, and ourow n r evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s none. F o r a ll th e s e re a s o n s , w e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f th is c a s e . W e al s o gr antM r . J ohns on’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d on appea l w i thoutpr epaym entof fi l i ng fee s , and w e r emi nd hi m thathe i s obl i gat ed t o cont i nue maki ng part i al p a ym e n ts u n til th e e n tir e fe e h a s b e e n p a id . So or der ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge