Opinion
No. 01-3613 MMC, (Docket No. 2)
October 12, 2001
ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER VENUE
On September 25, 2001, plaintiff Carrea Christopher, Jr. filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Having considered the complaint, the Court rules as follows.
Plaintiff's complaint establishes that venue is not proper in the Northern District of California under any of the applicable venue statutes. In federal question cases, venue is proper only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). Likewise, actions against federal officers acting in their official capacity can be brought "in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action." 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (e).
Although plaintiff pleads that diversity jurisdiction exists, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction, as plaintiff and defendant A.V. Builders are both citizens of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a); Compl. at 3:10-12. Accordingly, plaintiff's reliance on the venue statute applicable to diversity cases is misplaced.
Here, there is no showing that all defendants reside in the same state, as some of the defendants, e.g., the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, reside in or around Washington, D.C. Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper because "a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this judicial district." Compl. 3:8-9. Plaintiff's reliance on the "property" clause in the venue statute is misplaced, as the allegations in plaintiff's complaint do not concern the disposition of real or personal property. See Falcoal Inc. v. Turkiye Komur Isletmeleri Kurumu, 660 F. Supp. 1536, 1543 (S.D. Tex. 1987) (holding property clause applies only to in rem actions). Further, although plaintiff alleges that a substantial part of the events in question occurred in the Northern District, the events giving rise to each of plaintiff's claims appear to have occurred either in the Eastern District of California, at the Travis Air Force Base, or in the Southern District of California, at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego. See Compl. at 3, 10, 12.
Accordingly, plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling his claims in the appropriate district(s).
This order closes Docket No. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
[x] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED plaintiff's complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff's refiling his claims in the appropriate district(s).