Opinion
Case No.: 5:17cv190/MCR/EMT
08-07-2017
FREDERICK BANKS, Plaintiff, v. SOO SONG, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the court on Plaintiff's civil complaint (ECF No. 1), filed against Assistant United States Attorneys in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency in that district, and institutional officers at the Federal Medical Center at Butner, North Carolina ("FMC Butner"). Plaintiff has also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2).
Upon review of the complaint, it is apparent that venue is not proper in the Northern District.
Venue for federal actions is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides:
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
Id. More specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), which concerns actions brought against the United States or a federal agency, provides: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.
A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) 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 (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action. Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees, or agencies were not a party.Id.
Plaintiff's complaint is a confusing narrative of arguments relating to criminal proceedings brought against him in Case No. 2:03cr245, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and his placement at FMC Butner for a mental health evaluation. While the legal basis of his claim is unclear, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, the removal of Defendants from public office, and discharge from custody.
What is clear is that absolutely no connection between this case and the Northern District of Florida is evident from the four corners of the complaint. Plaintiff identifies as a resident of Youngstown, Ohio, and Defendants are located in either Pennsylvania or North Carolina. What is more, no part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim appear to have occurred here, nor is it stated that any property that is the subject of the litigation is located here. Plaintiff states only that defamatory statements, which where were allegedly made in proceedings in Plaintiff's criminal case in Pennsylvania, or in relation to his mental health evaluation in North Carolina, "were read by people in [the Northern District of Florida]" (ECF No. 1 at 1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), "[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." When venue is improper, the interests of efficiency and fairness generally make it preferential to transfer the case to a district where venue is proper. Goldlawr, Inc., v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962); World Holdings, LLC v. Federal Republic of Germany, No. 08-20198/CIV/ALTONAGA, 2009 WL 10664174, at *2 (S.D. Fla. May 22, 2009) (citing Davis v. Am. Society of Civil Engineers, 290 F. Supp. 2d 116, 120 (D.D.C. 2003)). Nonetheless, as the statute provides, the court in its sound discretion may dismiss the case rather than transfer it. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 102 S.Ct. 252, 266 (1981); First of Michigan Corp. v. Bramlet, 141 F.3d 260, 262 (6th Cir. 1998); Hapaniewski v. City of Chicago Heights, 883 F.2d 576, 578 (7th Cir.1989).
Here, there is no clear choice as to what district the court should transfer this case to. The Western District of Pennsylvania might be appropriate, as it is where the identified criminal charges were brought against him, but Plaintiff's complaint regarding placement in FMC Butner could warrant a transfer to the Middle District of North Carolina. Given these circumstances, dismissal of this case without prejudice is the more efficacious option since it would allow Plaintiff to determine where to file the case if he so chooses.
More fundamentally, the complaint speaks of no particular injury to Plaintiff, nor does it particularly identify any claim under federal law. These are potentially fatal flaws. Moreover, because the complaint is not grounded in facts or real events and does not express an actual legal interest, it may be subject to dismissal as a complaint "whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 1833 (1989); see also
Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff is a prolific litigant who has filed numerous cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania. See PACER website, https://ecf.pawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?275326332973762-L_1_0-1 (visited July 27, 2017). The prolific nature of Plaintiff's complaint filing suggests that Plaintiff regularly files cases without much aforethought as to their legal bases, factual support, or, in this case, their proper venue. This underscores the court's finding that at present no proper venue for this case is evident—as Plaintiff himself did not appear to seriously consider the matter of venue when he filed this case. It is hoped that this Report will cause Plaintiff to pause and reflect upon these matters should he consider filing lawsuits in the future.
Accordingly, it respectfully RECOMMENDED:
1. That the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
2. That all pending motions be denied as moot.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 7th day of August 2017.
/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only , and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S. Ct. 1728 (1992) (under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a federal court may dismiss a complaint whose factual contentions describe "fantastic or delusional scenarios"). While the court does not presently base dismissal on the complaint's deficiencies, those deficiencies are part of what would cloud the court's determination of where to properly transfer the case.