Opinion
No. CV03-029-S-MHW
February 3, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff's Complaint was conditionally filed on January 21, 2003. The Court now reviews the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court also reviews Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Having reviewed the record, and otherwise being fully informed, the Court enters the following Order.
I. REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
A. Background
Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, sues various federal district court clerks for failure to file her submitted cases. Among the defendants is Cameron Burke, the Clerk of the Idaho District Court.
B. Standard of Law and Discussion
The Court is required to review complaints seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court must dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof which states a frivolous or malicious claim, which fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Plaintiff fails to make any specific allegations as to when she attempted to file a case in this court and which pleadings or papers she attempted to file. Plaintiff shall have until March 7, 2003, in which to provide the Court with additional factual information to demonstrate that she can state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Particularly, she should state the dates on which she sent documents to be filed, and provide copies of what she attempted to file. In addition, Plaintiff has failed to set forth any federal ground for her claims, which she will have to do in order to proceed.
Further, no personal jurisdiction exists and venue is improper as to the defendants other than Cameron Burke. Federal due process requires that a nonresident defendant have minimum contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). To avoid dismissal, Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir. 1987). Personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant exists if: (1) the nonresident defendant has some connection with the forum state; (2) the claim arises out of the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. See Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 (9th Cir. 1977).
Here, exercise of personal jurisdiction over the named defendants other than Cameron Burke would be unreasonable, because they reside in states other than Idaho, and because the Complaint does not contain allegations that any of the acts complained of occurred in Idaho. Plaintiff has made no assertions that these Defendants have any connection with the state of Idaho which would render them amenable to service under the International Shoe standard.
It also appears that venue is improper. Civil actions may be brought only in "(1) a judicial district in which 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 (2) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). There appears to be no basis for venue in Idaho, Accordingly, any amended complaint filed in this court should not include claims against the out-of-state defendants. If Plaintiff does not wish to file an amended complaint, she can file a motion for voluntary dismissal.
If Plaintiff chooses to amend, her amended complaint must contain all of her allegations in a single pleading, and cannot rely upon or incorporate by reference prior pleadings. D. Idaho L. Civ. R. 15.1 ("Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a matter of course or upon a motion to amend, shall reproduce the entire pleading as amended"). Plaintiff shall set forth each different factual allegation in a separate numbered paragraph. The amended complaint must be legibly written or typed in its entirety, and it should be clearly designated as the "First Amended Complaint." PLAINTIFF IS CAUTIONED IF SHE FAILS TO AMEND BY MARCH 7, 2003, THE COMPLAINT MAY BE DISMISSED. Alternatively, the court will permit Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss her complaint by submitting a notice of voluntary dismissal.
Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is currently moot. The Court shall reconsider the Motion upon the filing of an amended complaint if Plaintiff provides the Court with supplemental documentation regarding any federal, state, or local welfare, social security, family support, or other funds she uses to support herself.
II. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall amend her complaint or file a notice of voluntary dismissal no later than March 7, 2003.
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 1) is MOOT. Plaintiff shall provide the Court with supplemental documentation regarding the amount of any federal, state, or local welfare, social security, family support, or other funds she uses to support herself if she wishes the Court to reconsider her Motion.