Clark 366758 v. Lucius

1 KM 2 WO — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA — 8 — 9 Richard Gaylen Clark, No. CV-24-01863-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER — 12 — Robin Lucius, et al., — 13 — Defendants. — 14 — — 15 — Self-represented Plaintiff Richard Gaylen Clark has filed a civil rights Complaint — 16 — pursuant to pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The Court will dismiss this case. — 17 — I. Improper Venue — 18 — The Court may raise the issue of venue sua sponte when the defendants have not yet — 19 — filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not yet run. Costlow v. Weeks, — 20 — 790 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). — 21 — Section 1391(b), 28 U.S.C., provides that a civil action may be brought in: — 22 — (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are 23 residents of the State in which the district located; 24 (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 25 is the subject of the action is situated; or 26 (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 — 27 — is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such 28 action. 1 Plaintiff alleges the events giving rise to his claims occurred in Shreveport and 2| Haughton, Louisiana and he states all of the named Defendants reside in Louisiana. Accordingly, venue is not proper in this District. 4) II. Dismissal 5 When venue has been laid in the wrong district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if it be 6| inthe interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). Whether to dismiss or transfer the case is within the 8 | Court’s discretion. Cook v. Fox, 537 F.2d 370, 371 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). 9 Because Defendants are located in Louisiana, and the events or omissions giving 10 | rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Louisiana, this action could have been brought in the 11 | United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C. § 98 (c). 12 | The Court will therefore dismiss this case so that Plaintiff may re-file his claims in the 13 | proper district. 14 IT IS ORDERED that the Complaint and this action are dismissed without 15 | prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment of dismissal without prejudice accordingly. 17 Dated this 9th day of September, 2024. — 18 — 19 a 3 — 20 — 1 _ James A. Teil Org Senior United States District Judge — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —