Jones v. Ignite Medical Resorts

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MELONY LYNN JONES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 26-2147-JWB
IGNITE MEDICAL RESORTS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s response to the court’s order to show cause.
(Doc. 7.) After review, the court transfers this matter to the Western District of Missouri.
I. 	Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this matter against her former
employer. 	Plaintiff brings claims of race discrimination under Title VII. 	According to her
complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in Kansas City, Missouri, and further alleges that
the discriminatory conduct occurred in Kansas City, Missouri. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff resides in
St. Joseph, Missouri.
On March 26, 2026, Magistrate Judge Jennifer Wieland screened the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Upon review, the facts in the complaint did not sufficiently show
that venue was proper in this court. 	Magistrate Judge Wieland ordered Plaintiff to show cause
why this matter should not be transferred to the Western District of Missouri or dismissed for
improper venue. Plaintiff filed a response to the show cause order on April 1, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00369-RK Document 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
II. 	Analysis
Plaintiff’s claim arises under Title VII which has its own venue statute. Under that statute,
venue is proper in the district where the unlawful employment practice allegedly occurred, where
the employment records are maintained, or where the plaintiff would have worked but for the
alleged unlawful practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). There is also a catch all provision that is
applicable when a defendant is not found in any “such district.” Id. After review of the complaint,
it is clear that the allegations all involve wrongful conduct that occurred in Kansas City, Missouri.
None of Plaintiff’s allegations involve the state of Kansas. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to
the court and she filed a very brief response. Plaintiff’s response states that Defendant has two
other locations in this district. (Doc. 7.) Other than listing those locations, Plaintiff fails to address
how venue is proper in this court under Title VII’s venue provision. Plaintiff does not allege in
her complaint nor does she assert in the response to the show cause order that she worked in
Kansas. Therefore, it is clear that venue is improper in this district.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), if venue is improper, the court may transfer the action to
a district in which the action might have been brought if it serves “the interest of justice.” A court
should usually “transfer an action, rather than dismiss it for improper venue.” Weber v. Ideker,
Inc., 978 F. Supp. 1419, 1420 (D. Kan. 1997) (citation omitted). Here, due to the time limitations
on filing employment discrimination claims, Plaintiff may be prejudiced if the court were to
dismiss her claim. Therefore, transfer is appropriate. See id.
Because Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that discriminatory conduct occurred in Kansas City,
Missouri, Plaintiff could have brought this action in the Western District of Missouri. Therefore,
the court finds that this matter should be transferred to that district.
Case 4:26-cv-00369-RK Document 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
III. 	Conclusion
The clerk is to transfer this action to the Western District of Missouri.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 30th day of April, 2026.
s/ John W. Broomes
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-00369-RK Document 8 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3