T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### M ar c h 28,2007 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 ANT HONY C . KE NNE Y,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 5169 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) M I L L E N N I U M R A I L , I N C . , and KE I T H E GAN,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 1 5 9 - J H P - F H M)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of t hi s appea l . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a)(2); 10 TH C IR . 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. A nt honyC . K enneyappea l s fr om t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al w i thout pr ej udi ce of

hi s pr o s e compl ai ntagai ns tM i l l enni um R ai l , I nc. and K ei th E gan ( col l ect i vel y“M i l l enni um ”) as fr i vol ous . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under28- 2-

U . S. C . § 1291, and, beca us e M r . K enneybr oughthi s act i on i n the w r ong venue, we a ffi r m. I. B AC KG R OUND M r. K e n n e yp ro c e e d s p ro se a n d in fo rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l, as h e d id in th e d istric t co u rt. W e re v iew M r. K e n n e y ’s p ro se p lea d in g s a n d p a p e rs lib e ra lly and hol d t hem t o a l es s exac t i ng s t andar d than thos e dr aft ed byatt orney s . H al l v. B e llm o n , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). M r . K e n n e y w a s a p p a r e n t l y e m p l o ye d a tM i l l e n n i u m ’ s J u n c t i o n C i ty, K ans as w or ks i t e as a combi nat i on w el derand pi pe fi t t erfr om J anuary18, 2006 unt i l he w as fi r ed on February20, 2006. A ft erhi s t erm i nat i on, M r . K enneyfi l ed a c o m p lai n t w ith the E q u al E m p loym en t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m issi o n (“E E O C ”), al l egi ng t hatM i l l enni um had di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns thi m beca us e he i s A fr i canA m er i can. I n t he EE O C compl ai nt , he l i s t ed J unct i on C i ty , K ans as as M ille n n iu m ’s a d d re s s . O n M ar ch 10, 2006, t he EE O C i nform ed M r . K enneyt hati thad notfi l ed a char ge on hi s behal f and r eques t ed addi t i onal i nform at i on s o i tcoul d det erm i ne w hetherM r. K enn eyhad probab l e cause to fi l e a cha rge. T he E E O C ’s res po nse in c lu d e d a list o f

th e in fo rm a tio n th e E E O C n e e d e d a n d listed a n u m b e r h e c o u ld cal l foras s i s t ance . T he r ecor d cont ai ns no r i ght - t o- s ue not i ce orother in fo rm a tio n f

ro m th e E E O C in d ic a tin g th e s ta tu s o f its in v e s tig a tio n . O n M ar ch 15, 2006, M r . K enneybr oughts ui tagai ns tM i l l enni um i n the- 3-

U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe N or thern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, al l egi ng that h e w a s ra c iallyd isc rim in a ted a g a in st in v io latio n o f T itl e V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A ctof 1964. T he di s t r i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed M r . K enney ’ s compl ai ntas fr i vol ous pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1215( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) and ( i i ) , butnot ed thati tpr obabl yl acke d ju risd ictio n b e c a u se th e e v e n ts g iv in g rise to h is c laim o c c u rre d in K a n sa s. T h is a p p e a l fo llo w e d . II. D I SC US SI ON W e m aysua spon t e dis m i ss an act i on for i m proper ven ue “w hen t he d efen se i s obvi ous fr om t he fa ce of t he compl ai ntand no furtherfac tual r ecor d i s r equi r ed t o be deve l oped. ” Truj i l l o v. W i l l i ams, 465 F. 3d 1210, 1217 ( 10th C i r . 2006) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he ap pli cable venu e provis i on provides that Tit l e V II act i on s m aybe br oughti n anyj udi ci al di s tr i cti n the St at e i n w hi ch the unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce i s al l eged t o have be en comm i t t ed, i n the j udi ci al d istri ct i n w h ich th e e m p loym en t r ec o rds re leva n t t o su ch p rac ti ce are m ai nt ai ned and a dm i ni s t er ed, ori n the j udi ci al di s tr i cti n w hi ch the aggr i eved pe r s on w oul d have w or ked butfort he al l eged unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce, buti f the r es pondenti s notfound w i thi n anys uch di s t r i ct , s uch an a ct i on m aybe br oughtw i thi n the j udi ci al di s tr i cti n w hi ch t he r es pondenthas hi s pr i nci pal offi ce. 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 3) . See Pi er ce v. Shor tySm al l ’ s of B r ans on, I nc. , 137 F. 3d 1190, 1191 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( s t at i ng that42 U . S. C . 2000e- 5( f) ( 3) i s t he p ro p e r v e n u e p ro v is io n fo r T itle V II c la im s ). H er e, M r . K enney ’ s compl ai nti ndi cat es t hatK ans as i s t he onl ypr oper- 4-

venue be caus e i ti s t he s t at e w her e the al l eged a dver s e empl oym entact i on occurr ed and w her e M i l l enni um i s l ocat ed. M or eover , nei therthe compl ai ntnor the re co rd su p p o rtv en u e in O k laho m a. F o r ex am p le, n o thing ind icates tha t M r. K enney ’ s empl oym entr ecor ds ar e mai nt ai ned oradmi ni s t er ed i n O kl ahoma, nor does M r . K enneycl ai m t hathe w oul d have w orked ther e, butforan unl aw ful empl oym entpr act i ce. Fur t herm or e, M r . K enneydoes noteven s ugges ton appea l th a t h e c o u ld e s ta b lis h p ro p e r v e n u e in O k la h o m a . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al w i thoutpr ej udi ce.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt,

R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge