Opinion
2:24-cv-341-ECM-CWB
08-02-2024
JACQUELYN HARDY, Plaintiff, v. LEE BARNES, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHAD W. BRYAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff Jacquelyn Hardy, who is proceeding pro se, filed this action on June 7, 2024 (Doc. 1) and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). By Order entered June 12, 2024 (Doc. 5), in forma pauperis status was granted and service of process was deferred pending threshold review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After conducting such review and concluding that the Complaint was insufficiently pleaded, the undersigned entered an Order on July 17, 2024 (Doc. 7) directing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint and setting out what information should be included to remedy the initial pleading deficiencies (id. at pp. 4-5). Although Plaintiff did file an Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) by the imposed deadline, it has become apparent that venue is improper and that a dismissal is warranted.
II. Discussion
In both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sets out a series of facts based around her efforts to contest a speeding ticket. (Doc. 1 at p. 1; Doc. 8 at pp. 1-2). The sole named defendant is Lee Barnes, who is identified as a municipal judge in Pelham, Alabama. (See Doc. 8 at p. 3). In short, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant Barnes's conduct in the handling of her judicial proceedings. (Doc. 8 at pp. 2-3; see also Doc. 1 at pp. 1-2).
A federal civil action is limited to the following venues:
(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 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.28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Here, however, Defendant Barnes is identified in both the Complaint and the Amended Complaint as having an address in Pelham, Alabama (Doc. 1 at p. 1, ¶ 2; Doc. 8 at p. 1, ¶ 2), and the “[p]lace of alleged violation of civil rights” likewise is identified as being in Pelham, Alabama (Doc. 1 at p. 1, ¶ 3; Doc. 8 at p. 1, ¶ 3). The undersigned thus cannot discern any factual basis that would render venue proper in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 81(a)(3) (stating that Shelby County, Alabama falls within the boundaries of the Northern District of Alabama).
“The 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See also Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013) (explaining that if a case does not fall within one of the three designated categories, “venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed or transferred under § 1406(a)”). Because Plaintiff has not identified any specific cause of action or legal theory and has not established any basis for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, the undersigned concludes that a dismissal, rather than a transfer, would be appropriate in this particular instance.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” and “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). The Amended Complaint fails to conform to the Rule 8 standard and instead is “replete with conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action.” Yeyille v. Miami Dade Cnty. Pub. Sch., 643 Fed.Appx. 882, 884 (11th Cir. 2016). Put more simply, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a recognized legal claim and sufficient factual allegations to support that claim. And Plaintiff likewise has failed to set forth a sufficient basis to invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction. For these reasons, the allegations in the Amended Complaint-even if construed liberally- are insufficient to survive review under § 1915(e). A dismissal without prejudice therefore would afford Plaintiff the opportunity to revisit her allegations before potentially refiling in an appropriate venue.
The undersigned further observes that the conduct at issue would appear to fall squarely within Defendant Barnes's role as a judicial officer such that any potential claim would be barred by immunity. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (holding that judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge hereby RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed without prejudice.
It is ORDERED that objections to this Recommendation must be filed no later than August 16, 2024. An objecting party must identify the specific portion(s) of factual findings/ legal conclusions to which objection is made and must describe in detail the basis for each objection. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered.
After receiving objections, the District Judge will conduct a de novo review of the findings or recommendations to which objection is made. The District Judge may accept, reject, or modify the Recommendation or may refer the matter back to the Magistrate Judge with instructions for further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party shall be deemed to have waived the right to challenge on appeal a District Judge's order to the extent it is based upon unobjected-to findings or recommendations. The court on appeal may review unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions only for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
No party may appeal this Recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. An appeal may be taken only from an appealable decision entered by the District Judge.