Opinion
23-cv-02619-DMR
10-25-2023
KEITH W. BEAUFORD, Plaintiff, v. DENIS R. MCDONOUGH, Defendant.
REQUEST FOR REASSIGNMENT TO DISTRICT JUDGE AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER VENUE
DONNA M. RYU, Chief Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Keith Beauford filed a complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on May 26, 2023. [Docket Nos. 1, 3.] The court finds that Beauford qualifies for IFP status. Next, the court screens the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
On September 25, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case is properly venued in this district and should not be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district. [Docket No. 9.] Plaintiff filed a statement in response. [Docket No. 10 (“Statement”).] Having reviewed the complaint and the Statement, the court concludes that venue is not proper in the Northern District of California.
Although Beauford consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Defendant has not. Accordingly, the court requests that this case be reassigned to a District Judge and issues this Report and Recommendation with a recommendation that the complaint be dismissed for improper venue.
I. DISCUSSION
Venue in Title VII cases is not set by the general venue statute, 28 U.SC. § 1391, but by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Johnson v. Payless Drug Stores Nw., Inc., 950 F.2d 586, 587 (9th Cir. 1991). Title VII authorizes suit “‘in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed' as well as in the district where employment records are kept, in the district where the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged unlawful practice, and, if those provisions fail to provide a forum, in the district where the defendant keeps its principal office.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prod., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 504 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3); Johnson, 950 F.2d at 586). Title VII's venue provision “seeks to limit venue to the judicial district concerned with the alleged discrimination.” Jaiyeola v. Rivian, No. 22-CV-03982-BLF, 2023 WL 2173188, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2023) (quoting Passantino, 212 F.3d at 504).
In response to the order to show cause, Beauford acknowledges that he filed the complaint in the wrong district. Statement at 2. He also confirms that he lived in Helena, Montana at the time of the alleged incident, and that he currently resides in Reno, Nevada. Id. Beauford does not make any other argument or specify where the case should be transferred.
Although the District of Montana appears to be a proper venue, other districts are also potentially appropriate venues for Plaintiff's case under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Accordingly, the court recommends dismissal rather than transfer, so that Plaintiff can pick the appropriate venue if he chooses to refile the case in a different district. See Perrin v. TRW Info. Servs., 990 F.2d 1259 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished decision) (“Although the district court has broad discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to decide whether to dismiss for lack of venue or to transfer in the interest of justice, the district court's discretion does not extend to dismissal with prejudice. A dismissal for lack of venue is not a decision on the merits of an action” (citations omitted)).
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the court recommends that Beauford's complaint be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue. The Clerk is directed to reassign this case to a district judge. Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district judge within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 72-2.
The court refers Beauford to the section “Representing Yourself” on the Court's website, located at https://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/, as well as the Court's Legal Help Centers for unrepresented parties. Parties may schedule an appointment by calling 415-782-8982 or emailing fedpro@sfbar.org.
IT IS SO ORDERED.