Emrit v. LNU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Ronald Satish Emrit
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-517-LM
Special Agent in Charge of
FBI Field Office,
Southern District of New York
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se plaintiff Ronald Satish Emrit, proceeding in forma
pauperis, has filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against an unnamed
Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Field Office in the Southern
District of New York. The complaint is before the court for
preliminary review pursuant to LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §
1915.
Standard
This court conducts a preliminary review of complaints
filed in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 	Claims may
be dismissed sua sponte, if, among other things, the court lacks
jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from the relief sought, or
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. 	See id. 	In considering whether the complaint states a
claim, the court determines if, stripped of legal conclusions
and with all reasonable inferences construed in plaintiff’s
Case 1:22-cv-00517-LM Document 3 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 4

2
favor, the complaint contains “sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief” upon which relief
can be granted. 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (citation omitted). 	In undertaking this review, the
court is mindful that pro se complaints must be construed
liberally. 	See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per
curiam). 	This is “not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not
required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim.”
Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980).
Background
Mr. Emrit is a Florida resident. 	Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶ 9.
While his complaint is sometimes difficult to follow, his legal
claim -- repeated throughout each of six enumerated counts -- is
based on an allegation that the New York-based defendant has
committed various statutory and constitutional violations “by
failing to recognize that Americans have the freedom to get
married to Cuban nationals and to contact the Cuban Embassy” in
Washington, D.C. 	Compl. (Doc. No. 1) ¶¶ 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, 41.
Venue
Venue is appropriate in the judicial district where all the
defendants reside, or where a substantial part of the events
giving rise to the plaintiff's claims occurred. 	28 U.S.C. §
1391(b). 	Where the defense of improper venue is “obvious from
the face of the complaint and no further factual record is
Case 1:22-cv-00517-LM Document 3 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 4

3
required to be developed, the court may, sua sponte, dismiss the
case.” 	Hart v. Rowe, No. 20-cv-417-LM, 2021 WL 1581781, at *1
(D.N.H. Mar. 5, 2021) (cleaned up), R & R adopted, 2021 WL
1581013 (D.N.H. Apr. 22, 2021); see also Wilkinson v. Sec'y,
Fla. Dep't of Corrs., 622 F. App’x. 805, 808–09 (11th Cir.
2015) (court may dismiss a matter, sua sponte, for
defective venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, after providing
plaintiff with opportunity to object).
Here, the defendant is located in New York. 	The complaint
references events only in Maryland, New York and Washington,
D.C. 	Moreover, the complaint contains no reference whatsoever
to New Hampshire. 	Accordingly, venue is not proper in this
court. The case should be dismissed, without prejudice to
plaintiff filing it in an appropriate court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss the complaint because venue over Mr. Emrit’s claims is
not proper in this court. 	Such dismissal should be without
prejudice to re-filing it in a court of proper venue.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
Case 1:22-cv-00517-LM Document 3 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 4

4
district court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Nat'l Ins. Co.,
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to
file any objections within the specified time waives the right
to appeal the district court's Order. 	See Santos-Santos v.
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
November 21, 2022
cc: Ronald Satish Emrit, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00517-LM Document 3 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 4