Opinion
No. CV03-028-S-LMB
February 3, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff's Complaint was conditionally filed on January 21, 2003. Plaintiff has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final orders in this case. 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 resides in Texas. She sues Florida Assistant Attorney General Ellen Winslow, and Florida Attorney General employee Rufus Castleberry. Her first cause of action is a procedural due process claim arising from an illegal termination hearing on May 8, 2000. Her second cause of action is a First Amendment and false imprisonment claim regarding a September 8, 1999 "announcement" and an April 6, 2000 "announcement." Her third cause of action is an illegal taking claim regarding the repossession of her home in February or March 8, 2001. Her fourth cause of action is an equal protection and discrimination claim arising in January 5, 2000, in which she claims that Judge Donna Miller of the Lake County Court failed to listen to evidence or grant her a protective injunction.
In her prayer, among other requests, Plaintiff states that she desires this Court to intervene in her Florida criminal cases. She also states that she has sued every judge in the Florida Lake County Court, She wants return of her house, computer and dog. She also seeks an injunction preventing Defendants from falsely arresting her or placing her in a facility for the mentally ill.
A review of the Lake County, Florida Court docket shows that Plaintiff has filed 74 civil cases in that court. See Exhibit 1. A review of a sampling of the cases showed that most appear to have been voluntarily dismissed. See Exhibit 2. Plaintiff's filings and correspondence in this matter contain threats that she will have any judge who dismisses her case removed from his or her position.
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).
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 mast 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 would be unreasonable, because they reside in Florida, and because the Complaint does not contain any 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.
Where venue appears improper, the district court "shall dismiss the case" or, "if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court declines to transfer this case and shall dismiss it for the following reasons: (1) venue and personal jurisdiction in Idaho are clearly improper; (2) Plaintiff has not stated a federal cause of action in her Complaint upon which she can proceed; and (3) Plaintiff has had a history of filing multitudinous complaints which have been dismissed prior to a resolution on the merits in at least one other jurisdiction.
All of Plaintiff's causes of action except her property-taking claim arise from circumstances which occurred more than two years prior to the filing of the Complaint. Therefore, the statute of limitation has expired. In addition, Plaintiff also attempts to challenge Florida state court orders. A federal district court has no jurisdiction "over challenges to state-court decisions, in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings, even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). "This rule applies even though . . . the challenge is anchored to alleged deprivations of federally protected due process and equal protection rights." Id. at 486 (internal citation omitted). Plaintiff has not stated whether any state actor or action was involved in repossessing her home; therefore, she has not stated a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
II. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 1) is MOOT.