Lattimore v. United States of America et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Manonda Grace Lattimore,
Plaintiff,
v.
United States of America, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-26-00952-PHX-MTL
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on its own review of the record and of Plaintiff
Manonda Lattimore’s amended complaint (Doc. 18). The defendants have not yet appeared
or responded to the amended complaint. The Court finds that venue is not proper in this
District and transfers this action to the District of Nevada.
I.
Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada. (Doc. 18 at 2; see also Doc. 18-1 at 1.) She names
the Office of Administrative Law Judges for the United States Department of Labor, the
United States Attorney General, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Secretary of Labor, and the Department of Labor as defendants. (Doc. 18 at 3-4.) Lattimore
challenges two administrative agency adjudications on grounds that they were “undertaken
without lawful adjudicative authority . . . , resulting in ongoing constitutional injury.” (See
id. at 7.) She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a vacatur of “all orders,
decisions, and administrative records arising from [the administrative] proceedings.” (Id.
at 8.)
Case 2:26-cv-00952-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II.
The Court may raise the issue of venue when the defendants have not yet filed a
responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not yet run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790
F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). “[M]ost courts hold that the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing proper venue.” Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Comput. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d
1154, 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)—which applies in actions like this one where a defendant is
the United States or one of its agencies or officers or employees “acting in his official
capacity or under color of legal authority”—states, in relevant part, that a civil action may
be brought in “any judicial district in which” (1) “a defendant in the action resides,” (2) “a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or (3) “the
plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint
does not indicate that the District of Arizona is the correct venue under any of these
statutory options.
Plaintiff resides in Nevada. (Doc. 18 at 2; Doc. 18-1 at 1.) The defendants consist
of United States agencies and officers, (Doc. 18 at 3-4), and such defendants are typically
deemed to reside in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Chorostecki v. Blinken, 742 F. Supp. 3d
1078, 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (“Courts generally agree that federal defendants reside in
Washington, D.C. for venue purposes . . . .”); Archuleta v. Sullivan, 725 F. Supp. 602, 605
(D.D.C. 1989) (stating that for “an officer or employee of the United States, or any agency
thereof, acting in his official capacity, . . . the place where the defendant resides is not the
defendant’s personal residence but his official residence, i.e., where his official duties are
performed”); see also Garcia v. Acosta, 393 F. Supp. 3d 93, 108 (D.D.C. 2019) (finding
that the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor reside in the District of Columbia);
Downey v. United States, Civ. No. 19-00406 LEK-WRP, 2019 WL 4143288, at *3 (D.
Haw. Aug. 30, 2019) (“[T]he Department of Justice, as well as the Attorney
General . . . whom Plaintiff is suing in [his] official capacit[y], are residents of Washington
D.C. for purposes of the venue analysis.”). Indeed, Plaintiff provides Washington, D.C.
Case 2:26-cv-00952-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
addresses for all defendants. (See Doc. 18 at 3-4.)
Further, nothing in the amended complaint indicates that a “substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the District of Arizona, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(e)(1), or that any pertinent event or omission occurred in this District (see generally
Doc. 18). In fact, Plaintiff indicated on her civil cover sheet that her claim for relief arose
outside of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1 at 1.) Venue is therefore proper in at least the District of
Nevada and the District for the District of Columbia, considering the above. But, at bottom,
the District of Arizona is not implicated.
III.
When venue has been laid in the wrong district, the Court must “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). Whether to dismiss or transfer the case is within the
Court’s discretion. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992).
As indicated above, this action could have been brought in the District of Nevada
or the District for the District of Columbia. The Court finds a transfer to the District of
Nevada, where Plaintiff resides, is in the interest of justice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk
of Court must close this case.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Case 2:26-cv-00952-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Void Administrative
Adjudicative Actions for Lack of Authority (Doc. 3) and the Motion for Preliminary
Injunctive Relief to Bar Reliance on Challenged Adjudicative Record Pending Final
Determination (Doc. 23) are left to the discretion of the transferee court for resolution.
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00952-MTL Document 24 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4