Opinion
Case No. C07-5517RBL.
October 29, 2007
NOTED FOR: November 23, 2007
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This habeas corpus petition has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 3 and MJR 4. Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Potter County District Court in Texas. He was convicted of Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon. He also challenges the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Amarillo dismissing prior Habeas Corpus petitions filed in that court. In the proposed petition, petitioner also attempts to file a "Bivens" action (Dkt. #1, Proposed petition).
During the course of 2007, Mr. Minnfee has attempted to file several actions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The actions include both Habeas Corpus petitions and Civil Rights or "Bivens" actions. Those cases include: Minnfee v. Ruth, 07-CV-0200JLR, (Dismissed Without Prejudice for improper venue); Minnfee v. Associate Attorney General et al. , 07-CV-399-JCC-JPD (Dismissed Without Prejudice for improper venue with a warning concerning the filing of "frivolous" actions);Minnfee v. Mueller, 07-CV-518RSL-JPD, (Dismissed for improper venue); and Minnfee v. Associate Attorney General, 07-CV-1212JLR-MJB (Dismissed for improper venue).
In each of the above-mentioned cases Mr. Minnfee challenges actions that have taken place in Texas. These actions have led to his being convicted and his serving time in Texas correctional facilities. Mr. Minnfee's conviction and sentence have no connection to Washington State, this Judicial District, or the Ninth Circuit. Venue is clearly improper. Mr. Minnfee has been instructed that his filings are not properly in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. He is now attempting to file the same type of action in the District Court at Tacoma. Mr. Minnfee challenges his Texas Conviction and the actions of the United States District Court Northern District of Texas (Dkt # 1). This court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the parties and venue is not proper. Mr. Minnfee has not perfected his application for in forma pauperis status, however, the action should be dismissed without any further delay.
This action should be Dismissed Without Prejudice. Mr. Minnfee is warned that continued filings of this nature will result in sanctions which may include a dismissal of cases with prejudice, monetary sanctions, or the entry of an order restricting future filings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on November 23, 2007, as noted in the caption.