Faison v. Davis ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MATTHEW LEVI FAISON, Case No. 20-cv-02792-JST 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9 10 CLIVE DAVIS, et al., Defendants. 11 12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Calhoun Correctional Institution in Blountstown, Florida has filed 14 the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1. His complaint is 15 now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff has been granted leave to 16 proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order. 17 DISCUSSION 18 A. Standard of Review 19 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 20 seeks redress from a governmental entity, or from an officer or an employee of a governmental 21 entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and 22 dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be 23 granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1915A(b) (1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police 25 Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 27 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not 1 grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted). 2 “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more 3 than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 4 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” 5 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must 6 proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. 7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 8 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated; and (2) that the 9 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 10 42, 48 (1988). 11 B. Complaint 12 This action will be dismissed for lack of venue. Plaintiff is incarcerated in Florida. He has 13 named as defendants individuals who do not reside in the Northern District of California. 14 According to the complaint, defendants Clive Davis, Jane Doe clerk of records for the Los 15 Angeles Recording School, John Doe deputy clerk and secretary for the Los Angeles Recording 16 School appear to reside in Los Angeles, and defendants Joyce Street Sims and Valorie Simpson 17 reside in Florida. Plaintiff alleges that (1) he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury 18 pursuant to the Seventh Amendment,1 (2) defendants violated 17 U.S.C. § 101,2 and (3) that this 19 action is “provided of the (4th)(5th)(14th) and (7th) U.S. Constitution amendment via Fed. R. 20 Evid. 401(a)(b).” ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Plaintiff does not explain how defendants violated his 21 constitutional or statutory rights. See generally ECF No. 1 22 In relevant part, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any 23 defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; or (2) 24 a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 25 occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). No defendant is alleged to reside in, and none of the events or 26 1 The Seventh Amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. U. S. Const. 27 amend. VII. 1 omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in, the Northern District of California. Venue 2 || therefore is not proper in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Because it is unclear where venue 3 lies for this action, the Court will dismiss this case instead of transferring it. 4 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for lack of venue. Plaintiff may re-file this action 5 || in the appropriate venue. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons set forth above, this action is DISMISSED for lack of venue. The Clerk 8 shall enter judgment in favor of defendants and against plaintiff, and close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: September 3, 2020 11 JON S. TIGAR 12 nited States District Judge © 15 16 it 4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28