Opinion
3:24-cv-00698-SB
05-10-2024
EUGENIA SONG, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
HON. STACIE F. BECKERMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Eugenia Song (“Song”) filed this action against the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) on April 24, 2024.Song also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The Court's review of Song's IFP application reveals that Song is unable to afford the filing fee. The Court therefore grants Song's IFP application. For the reasons explained below, however, the Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Song's complaint, without prejudice but without leave to refile in this court, because venue is improper in the District of Oregon.
Also on April 24, 2024, Song filed another complaint against the CIA. See Complaint at 1-6, Song v. CIA, Case No. 3:24-cv-00697-SB (D. Or. Apr. 24, 2024), ECF No. 2. The Court addresses that complaint in a separate opinion.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The IFP statute, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, provides, in relevant part, that a district “court shall dismiss [a plaintiff's IFP complaint] at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (stating that Section “1915(e) applies to all [IFP] complaints, not just those filed by [adults in custody]”). Section 1915(e) “authorizes ‘sua sponte dismissals of [IFP] cases[.]'” Hebrard v. Nofziger, 90 F.4th 1000, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214 (2007)).
It is well settled that courts “have a duty to read a pro se complaint liberally,” Sernas v. Cantrell, 857 Fed.Appx. 400, 401 (9th Cir. 2021), and that “[self-represented] litigants should be treated with ‘great leniency' when evaluating compliance with ‘the technical rules of civil procedure.'” Seals v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 797 Fed.Appx. 327, 327 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986)). As the Ninth Circuit has explained, there is a “good reason” that courts “afford leeway to [self-represented] parties, who appear without counsel and without the benefit of sophisticated representation: ‘Presumably unskilled in the law, the [self-represented] litigant is far more prone to making errors in pleading than the person who benefits from the representation of counsel.'” Huffman v. Lindgren, 81 F.4th 1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131).
DISCUSSION
The Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Song's complaint because venue is improper in the District of Oregon.
I. SONG'S LITIGATION HISTORY
A. Song's Current Complaint
Song, a Texas resident, brings this action against the CIA and cites the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) as her basis for invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (See Compl. at 1-3, 6, ECF No. 1, stating that Song resides in Fort Worth, Texas, referring to the defendant as the CIA “of [the] United States” and “CIA, litigation division,” and invoking federal question jurisdiction based on the “FOIA” and nature of suit code 895 on the civil cover sheet; see also Civ. Cover Sheet at 1, ECF No. 1-1, checking the box for nature of the suit code 895 and listing “Dallas, Texas” as the “County Residence of [the] First Listed Plaintiff”).
Song's complaint indicates that she is seeking “classified information redacted [by the] CIA,” and “$0[i.e.,] no monetary claim” for relief. (Compl. at 5.) In terms of her substantive factual allegations, Song's complaint directs the Court to “please see [an] attached letter.” (Id. at 4.) Song's letter describes the basis of her FOIA claim against the CIA. (Id. at 6.) Song alleges that the CIA has “refused to disclose whether it has records about its operative control over Project Beautiful, a psychological trainee hospital,” and “not released records due to [her].” (Id.) Song also alleges that Peter Coleman (“Coleman”) of Columbia University “started” the “psychological trainee hospital” at issue, and given the CIA's “connection” to Coleman and Project Beautiful, the CIA's “refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive records both violates the law and defies common sense.” (Id.) Song in turn “[d]emand[s] all [CIA] records related to Project Beautiful, a psychology research program with [its] classified component . . . redacted.” (Id.)
In addition to the foregoing, Song alleges that “on three occasions . . . in the past few years,” including while Song was in Pennsylvania and “Oregon and engaged in civil litigation against the Government,” Song mailed FOIA requests to the CIA asking for the records she references in her complaint. (Id.) Song also alleges that the CIA “may attempt to dismiss the case multiple times, but the court [has] consistently ruled that the plaintiff had valid claims last year.” (Id.)
B. Song's Previous Actions
In recent years, Song has filed numerous complaints, all of which appear to involve related allegations about harm that Song allegedly suffered because of a Columbia University psychological program or project and related military technology.
The Court may take judicial notice of matters of public record, such as court filings and records. SeeUnited States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994, 1001 (9th Cir. 2018) (“A court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record, which may include court records[.]”) (citations omitted); Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”); see also FED. R. EVID. 201(c)(1) (stating that “[t]he court . . . may take judicial notice on its own”); Blyden v. Navient Corp., No. 14-cv-02456, 2016 WL 6601658, at *1 n.4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) (“[T]he Court takes judicial notice of these documents on its own motion as they are court filings in the public record and are related to the matter before the Court.”) (simplified).
1. Summary of Previous Actions
This is a list of Song's federal cases of which the Court is aware:
• Song v. Burke, No. 3:23-cv-00349-JR, 2023 WL 4424759, at *1-5 (D. Or. May 3, 2023) (Song I) (reflecting that after dismissed the initial IFP complaint filed on March 10, 2023, the court dismissed Song's amended complaint, which “suffer[ed] from many of the same defects as her initial complaint”), findings and recommendation adopted in part, 2023 WL 4249212, at *1-2 (D. Or. June 29, 2023);
• Song v. Landers, No. 3:23-cv-00372-YY, 2023 WL 4535179, at *1-6 (D. Or. May 2, 2023) (Song II) (noting that after Song filed suit on March 15, 2023, the court dismissed Song's initial, first amended, and second amended IFP complaints), findings and recommendation adopted t 2023 WL 4535165, at *1 (D. Or. July 12, 2023);
• Song v. Columbia Univ., No. 3:23-cv-00407-HZ, 2023 WL 3004836, at *1-2 (D. Or. Apr. 18, 2023) (Song III) (dismissing Song's initial March 21, 2023 IFP complaint against Columbia University and Coleman, and noting that Song alleged that a Columbia University affiliate “routinely engage[d] in psychology research of . . . faculty and incoming members of the student body,” Columbia University had “routine contact with the United States Army for the purposes of this research,” and Song “suffer[ed] prolonged effects of this research conducted on her many years ago when she was a student”);
• Song v. Coleman, No. 3:23-cv-00407-JR, 2023 WL 4275389, at *1-5 (D. Or. May 3, 2023) (Song III) (dismissing Song's amended complaint), findings and recommendation adopted in part, 2023 WL 4267435, at *1-2 (D. Or. June 29, 2023);
The judge who issued the initial April 18, 2023 decision in Song III (i.e., Case No. 3:23-cv-00407) reassigned the case before a different judge issued the second decision on May 3, 2023.
• Song v. U.S. Gov't, No. 3:23-cv-00573-JR, 2023 WL 4535193, at *1-3 (D. Or. June 7, 2023) (Song IV) (noting that after the court dismissed the initial IFP complaint that Song filed on April 18, 2023, Song filed her “amended complaint and a number of separately docketed supporting ‘Exhibits,'” all of which the court dismissed), findings and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 4535167, at *1 (D. Or. July 12, 2023);
• Song v. Coleman, No. 1:23-cv-04526, 2023 WL 4409990, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2023) (Song V) (dismissing the complaint Song filed against Coleman on May 30, 2023, because Song did not pay the filing fee or file an IFP application); and
Song filed another case in the Southern District of New York on June 5, 2023, see Complaint at 1-3, Song v. Coleman, No. 1:23-cv-04740-LTS (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2023), ECF No. 1, which the court dismissed as duplicative of Case No. 1:23-cv-04526-LTS (Song V) on June 13, 2023. See Order of Dismissal at 1-2, Song v. Coleman, No. 1:23-cv-04740-LTS (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2023), ECF No. 3.
• Song v. Columbia Univ., No. 1:23-cv-04532, 2023 WL 4409989, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2023) (Song VI) (dismissing the complaint that Song filed against Columbia University on May 30, 2023 because Song did not pay the filing or file an IFP application).
Song also filed two new cases in the Southern District of New York on April 1, 2024, and April 8, 2024, against Emily Hoch (“Hoch”) of the Rand Corporation. See Complaint at 1-6, Song v. Hoch, No. 1:24-cv-02532-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2024), ECF No. 1; Complaint at 1-10, Song v. Hoch, No. 1:24-cv-02739-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2024), ECF No. 1. Song alleges that Hoch is using military computer technology or a militarized computer weapon to assault and spread misinformation about Song, and that Coleman is Hoch's co-conspirator and military program supervisor.
These courts dismissed Song's cases not long after she filed them. In multiple cases, Song repeatedly failed to cure deficiencies that the courts previously identified, or did not even attempt to do so.
2. Song IV
Song IV in particular is instructive here. In that case, Song filed an IFP complaint against the “U.S. Government” and an individual named Bruce Newsome (“Newsome”), who allegedly resided in San Diego County, California. 2023 WL 4535193, at *1. Song's amended complaint included “vague” allegations about an “awful” experience that she had with the CIA, “six hundred family CIAs in existence in the country,” and a “program” that Newsome designed, which at one point was called “Project Gorgeous” and located at a Navy base in San Diego County. 2023 WL 4535193, at *1-2 (simplified). Song's amended complaint also reflected that her “prayer for relief [was] to be out of th[e] program” given that she had “no clue why [she was] [t]here in the first place.” Id. at *1 (brackets omitted). Furthermore, the exhibits that Song filed in support of her amended complaint consisted of, among other things: (1) a list of individuals and entities that “allegedly have access to military technology,” (2) a “list of purported wrongdoers,” including a co-worker discussed below, a “Dr. Coleman” (i.e., Coleman, who works at Columbia University), and “Bruce Newsome of the U.S. Army,” (3) Song's “records requests to the National Security Division, Department of Justice and U.S. National Central Bureau Interpol” regarding Newsome and Project Gorgeous, (4) a summary of Song's “[r]elated [c]ases” from this district, and (5) “documents from [Song's] other cases, . . . within and outside this [d]istrict.” Id. at *1 n.1 (simplified).
Notably, Song's exhibits also included an April 19, 2023 letter from a CIA information and privacy coordinator regarding Song's March 29, 2023 “letter requesting records on [her]self.” See Exhibits to Amended Complaint at 9-10, Song v. U.S. Gov't, No. 3:23-cv-00573-JR (D. Or. May 27, 2023), ECF No. 20 (emphasis omitted). The privacy coordinator informed Song that pursuant to federal regulations, Song needed to provide additional “identifying information . . . before [the CIA could] effectively search [its] files . . . [and] begin processing [her] request.” Id. at 9. The privacy coordinator also explained that Song could “submit any additional information [that she] wish[e]d to help [the CIA] ensure that [its] search [was] as comprehensive and accurate as possible,” the CIA would not be providing copies of “correspondence and related documents” from any previous requests for information that it may have received from Song, and the CIA would hold Song's “request [open] for 45 business days from the date of [the April 19, 2023] letter pending receipt of the required information” from Song. (Id. at 10.)
Song also alleged in her exhibits that a “board-certified psychiatrist cleared [Song] of any mental health problems in advance” of the events in question, Coleman's “[r]esult [of] schizophrenia” was “not true,” Song's case concerns a national program that Columbia University's faculty started in 2014, and “Coleman received the Pope's CIA key[.]” Id., ECF No. 14. Additionally, Song's exhibits included a timeline that she purportedly submitted in support of a request for a restraining order to a California state court. Id., ECF No. 22-2 at 2. The timeline includes allegations about “mouth burns” that Song received from “the technology, [and] Bruce Newsome,” a voicemail that Song received from Newsome stating that Song “‘may not talk to anybody and allowing 1 phone call per day' via [Newsome's] military computer database,” which prompted Song to “phone[] 911,” and threatening voicemails that Song received. Id.
In an opinion dated June 7, 2023, the magistrate judge, who previously granted Song's application to proceed IFP, recommended that the district judge dismiss Song's amended complaint and the numerous exhibits that Song filed in support of her amended complaint. See 2023 WL 4535193, at *1-3. The magistrate judge noted that she had already advised Song that a FOIA action “cannot be maintained against private individuals or the entire Government of the United States,” and therefore “to the extent the amended complaint [could] be construed as alleging a FOIA claim, [Song could not] proceed against the named defendants.” Id. at *2.
The magistrate judge also emphasized that Song's “amended complaint fail[ed] to allege any connection to the State of Oregon,” and “[a]s described at length in regard to [Song's] prior pleadings across her lawsuits, venue must be proper in order for a particular case to proceed in the selected forum.” Id. at *2 (citing Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007)). The magistrate judge explained that Song failed to establish that venue was proper in the District of Oregon:
Although the Court previously identified these deficiencies, [Song] has not attempted to cure them via her amended complaint, which is wholly silent as to where (and when) the underlying events occurred. Moreover, [Song's] “Exhibits” make clear that she has never resided in Oregon, sought education from an Oregon-based institution, or performed work for an Oregon-based company, and the only individually named defendant resides in California. See Pl.'s Exhibits (docs. 17-18) (listing plaintiff's residences, educational institutions, and employers and their locations from 2000 through 2022); see also Pl.'s Notice of Change of Address (doc. 15) (plaintiff requesting electronic correspondences in lieu of paper copies, as the designated address in Fort Worth, Texas, is “her school” which “has . . . limited mailroom operation[s]” during the summer). In sum, due to the dearth of well-plead facts, it is impossible for the Court to reasonably infer that plaintiff's claims are plausible and fall within the statute of limitations, or that venue in this District is proper.Id.
For these reasons and others, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge dismiss Song's amended complaint without prejudice and advise Song that if she failed timely to amend her complaint within thirty days, the district judge would dismiss the case with prejudice. Id. at *3.
In an Order dated July 12, 2023, the district judge noted that Song did not file any objections and adopted the magistrate judge's opinion in full. See 2023 WL 4535167, at *1. The district judge advised Song that she could “file an amended complaint by August 11, 2023 that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and [the magistrate judge's opinion],” and [f]ailure to file an amended complaint by August 11, 2023 [would] result in the dismissal of [the] action with prejudice.” Id. Song did not file an amended complaint before or after the August 11, 2023 deadline, or otherwise attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge's opinion. Accordingly, on August 18, 2023, the district judge entered a judgment dismissing Song's action with prejudice. See Judgment at 1, Song v. U.S. Gov't, No. 3:23-cv-00573-JR (D. Or. Aug. 18, 2023), ECF No. 27.
3. Song II
Song II was comparable to Song IV in many respects. In Song II, the magistrate judge explained that Song had received “multiple attempts to cure the deficiencies in her complaints but ha[d] failed to do so,” and recommended that the district judge dismiss Song's second amended complaint without prejudice. 2023 WL 4535179, at *1. The magistrate judge observed that Song's federal claims “stem[med] from her belief that a military weapon-grade intelligence tool ha[d] been accessing her computer and emails since she resigned from a graduate teaching program at Columbia University in 2013.” Id. at *2. The magistrate judge also observed that Song alleged, among other things, that (1) Song's former co-worker, defendant Robert Henkel (“Henkel”), “wired approximately $800,000 to Peter Coleman, a professor at Columbia University to facilitate the illicit use of this military technology on [Song's] electronic communication[s],” (2) Henkel and defendant John Landers (“Landers”) were “in contact” before Landers “hired a private detective, Bruce Newsome, to take pictures of [Song's] home computer for a small fee of approximately $15,000,” and (3) Henkel “colluded” with defendant David Dowling, a California business owner, on the “military weapon-grade intelligence tool” at issue. Id.
The magistrate judge explained that Song failed plausibly to allege a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), because Song made “only vague and confusing allegations as to how and when defendants ‘colluded' to use military technology to access her electronic communication[s].” Id. at *2 (simplified). The magistrate judge further explained that Song “failed to establish that venue is proper in this district.” Id. at *6 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)). In support of this finding, the magistrate judge observed that Song previously “alleged vaguely that a ‘substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this district,'” and despite receiving an opportunity to amend and explain the basis of this allegation, Song “still fail[ed] to offer details showing that venue [was] proper in this district, even assuming [Song's] claims [were] properly pled.” Id. (citation omitted). For these reasons and others, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge dismiss Song's second amended complaint, without prejudice, “[b]ecause [she] failed to allege a valid claim for relief and ha[d] failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue[.]” Id.
In an Order dated July 12, 2023, the district judge adopted in full the magistrate judge's opinion over Song's objections. See 2023 WL 4535165, at *1. The district judge explained that Song's objections did not undermine the magistrate judge's recommendation with respect to Song's failure to establish venue and Song's request for “additional time due to a pending [FOIA] request pertaining to [her RICO] claim” did not “address the pleading deficiencies outlined” in the magistrate judge's previous orders and opinion. Id. The district judge dismissed Song's second amended complaint, without prejudice, because she “ha[d] failed to allege a valid claim for relief and ha[d] failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue.” Id.
4. Song I and Song III
Song achieved similar results in Song I and Song III. In Song I, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Song's amended complaint on the grounds that she failed to state a claim and establish that venue was proper in this district. See 2023 WL 4249212, at *1-2. The district judge explained that if Song “believe[d] she [could] cure the defects identified . . . in the [magistrate judge's opinion] and [the district judge's] Order dated March 21, 2023, [Song could] file a second amended complaint within 30 days of [the district judge's June 29, 2023] Order.” Id. at *2. Furthermore, the district judge advised Song that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint by that date [would] result in the [district judge] entering a judgment dismissing [the] case without prejudice, but without leave . . . to refile in this [c]ourt.” Id. Song did not attempt to cure the deficiencies before or after the amended pleading deadline, and therefore the district judge entered a judgment dismissing the action “without prejudice, but without leave to refile in this case.” Judgment at 1, Song v. Burke, No. 23-cv-00349-JR (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2023), ECF No. 24.
The outcome was the same in Song III. The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Song's amended complaint on the grounds that she failed to state a claim and establish that venue was proper in this district. See 2023 WL 4267435, at *1. The district judge explained that if Song “believe[d] she [could] cure the defects identified [in the magistrate judge's opinion], [Song could] file a second amended complaint within 30 days of [the district judge's June 29, 2023] Order.” Id. Furthermore, the district judge advised Song that “[f]ailure to file an amended complaint by that date [would] result in the [district judge] entering a judgment dismissing [the] case without prejudice, but without leave to refile in this [c]ourt.” Id.Song did not attempt to cure the previously identified deficiencies, and thus the district judge entered judgment on August 4, 2023, dismissing the action “without prejudice, but without leave to refile in this case.” Judgment at 1, Song v. Columbia Univ., No. 23-cv-00407-JR (D. Or. Aug. 4, 2023), ECF No. 25.
II. DISPOSITION
The Court recommends that the district judge dismiss this case, without prejudice, based on improper venue.
The FOIA provides, in relevant part, that “[o]n complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
Song resides in or around Fort Worth, Texas. (See Compl. at 1-3, 6, stating that Song resides in Fort Worth, Texas; see also Civ. Cover Sheet at 1, listing “Dallas, Texas” as the “County Residence of [the] First Listed Plaintiff”). Song's FOIA claim against the CIA is based on Song's allegation that she requested and the CIA improperly withheld records regarding a “psychological trainee hospital” and “[p]roject” and the CIA's “refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive records.” (See Compl. at 5-6, stating as much, seeking “classified information redacted [by the] CIA,” and alleging that the CIA “refused to disclose whether it has records about its operative control over Project Beautiful, a psychological trainee hospital,” the CIA has “not released records due to [Song],” and the CIA “refus[es] to acknowledge that it has responsive records”). Song also alleges that the project at issue is connected to a New York university (Columbia) and “on three occasions . . . in the past few years,” including while Song was in Pennsylvania and “Oregon and engaged in civil litigation against the Government,” Song mailed FOIA requests to the CIA asking for the records she references in her complaint. (Id.)
It is clear from the face of Song's complaint that the District of Oregon is not a district in which the complainant (Song) resides, in which Song has a principal place of business, or in which the CIA records that Song seeks are situated. On the contrary, Song's allegations suggest that the CIA records she seeks are situated in District of Columbia or the Eastern District of Virginia.
Song notes that while she was in Oregon and “engaged in civil litigation against the Government,” she mailed a FOIA request to the CIA. (Compl. at 6.) Song appears to be referring to, among other cases, Song IV. As discussed above, however, the magistrate judge in Song IV explained that Song's exhibits demonstrated that “she has never resided in Oregon, sought education from an Oregon-based institution, or performed work for an Oregon-based company, and the only individually named defendant [in Song IV] reside[d] in California.” 2023 WL 4535193, at *2.
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that venue is improper in the District of Oregon. Other courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Harrison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 464 F.Supp.2d 552, 559 (E.D. Va. 2006) (“[P]laintiff alleges that the FOIA Section of the BOP has failed to respond to his August 2004 request for records. The [FOIA] confers jurisdiction over a complaint on ‘the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.' 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). It does not appear that jurisdiction lies in this district because plaintiff states he is currently incarcerated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and does not allege where the agency records sought are located in this district.”); Schwarz v. I.R.S., 998 F.Supp. 201, 203 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[P]laintiff resides in Salt Lake City, Utah and plaintiff requested records from the Washington, D.C. office of the IRS. Since this district does not have authority to issue an injunction concerning this FOIA request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B), venue in the Northern District of New York is improper for this reason as well.”).
“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.” Schwarz, 998 F.Supp. at 203 n.3 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)). It appears that Song might be able to pursue a properly exhausted FOIA claim in multiple districts. Given Song's litigation history and the nature of her allegations, the Court does not find that the interest of justice warrant a transfer here. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the district judge dismiss Song's case without prejudice to refiling this case in a district or division in which it could have been brought, but without leave to refile in the District of Oregon.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Song's IFP application (ECF No. 3) but recommends that the district judge DISMISS this action, without prejudice to refiling in an appropriate venue, but without leave to refile in this court, because venue is improper in the District of Oregon.
SCHEDULING ORDER
The Court will refer its Findings and Recommendation to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due within fourteen (14) days from service of the Findings and Recommendation. If no objections are filed, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, a response is due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement.