Opinion ID: 168098
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Complaint (06-3103)

Text: The district court stated that M r. Davis’s complaint was “before the court on a form complaint for seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” R. (06-3103) Doc. 3 at 1. M r. Davis in fact wrote his complaint on an upside-down “Inmate Interview Request” form. Id. Doc. 1 at 1. The only apparent reason he did so was to use the ruled lines the form provided; he crossed out all other w ords on it. Nor does the complaint itself cite or in any way refer to § 1983. It does, however, claim that the district court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 9659. Construing M r. D avis’s pro se complaint liberally, see Garcia v. Lemaster, 439 F.3d 1215, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006), we read it as a suit seeking relief under that statute. H e in fact so argues in his appellate brief. It appears that the district court thought that M r. Davis’s complaint could not be a citizen suit under § 9659 because such a suit must be brought in the District of Columbia. But venue is not restricted to that district. The venue provision of § 9659 provides that citizen suits against governmental agencies “may be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,” 42 U.S.C. § 9659(b)(2) (emphasis added). “M ay” is permissive, not mandatory. -5- Congressional intent on this point becomes even clearer when one considers the accompanying venue provision for citizen suits against private actors: such suits “shall be brought in the district court for the district in which the alleged violation occurred,” id. § 9659(b)(1) (emphasis added). Although no published opinion specifically addresses this point, we note that citizen suits against the government have been regularly litigated outside the District of Columbia. See, e.g., Schalk v. Reilly, 900 F.2d 1091 (7th Cir. 1990) (CERCLA citizen suits against the EPA filed in District of Columbia were removed to and decided in the Southern District of Indiana); City of M oses Lake v. United States, 416 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (E.D. W ash. 2005) (deciding CERCLA suit not brought in District of Columbia); Worldw orks I, Inc. v. U. S. Dep’t of Army, 22 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Colo. 1998) (same); Conservation Law Found. of New England, Inc. v. Browner, 840 F. Supp. 171 (D. M ass. 1993) (same). Because M r. Davis was not in fact asserting any claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and his complaint was not a “repetitive filing of essentially the same claim” and therefore “frivolous and abusive,” we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings. W e intimate no view on the adequacy of M r. Davis’s claim in other respects. -6-