Everetts v. Allen Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SHERITA EVERETTS, §
PLAINTIFF, §
§
V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:26-CV-870-L-BK
§
ALLEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, §
DEFENDANT. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se civil action was referred
to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings
and a recommended disposition. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, the
complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because venue is not proper in
this Court.
On March 18, 2026, Plaintiff Sherita Everetts filed a pro se complaint against the Allen
Police Department and Judge Cynthia Porter Gore. See generally Doc. 3. She alleges
harassment by the Allen Police Department occurring in the city of Allen, Texas. Id. at 3-4.
Venue in a civil case is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which aims to place lawsuits in
the judicial district most connected to the parties or the events giving rise to the action.
Section 1391(b) provides that a civil action may be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents
of the State in which the district is located;
(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 is the subject of the
action is situated; or
Case 3:26-cv-00870-L-BK Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
(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 is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Here, the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in Plaintiff’s neighborhood in
Allen, Texas (Collin County), and within the geographical boundaries of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3).
Importantly, Plaintiff does not assert that any acts or omissions occurred within the geographical
boundaries of the Northern District of Texas. Thus, venue is not proper in this Court.
When venue is not proper, a district court has the authority to dismiss the case or transfer
it in the interest of justice to any district or division in which the action could have been brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (“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.”). See Caldwell v. Palmetto State
Savings Bank of South Carolina, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987) (concluding the district court
has broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss or transfer a case in the interest of
justice).
The Court concludes that the interests of justice do not support the transfer of this case to
the appropriate district, considering the relative infancy of the case and the failure of the
complaint to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Thus, the Court should instead exercise its broad discretion to dismiss the complaint without
prejudice to it being filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
Case 3:26-cv-00870-L-BK Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as
venue is improperly laid in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
SO RECOMMENDED on March 27, 2026.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by
law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific
written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific
written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal
conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir.
1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to object
to 14 days).
Case 3:26-cv-00870-L-BK Document 5 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>