Memmott v. Manning 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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORION DOUGLAS MEMMOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
BONNIE MANNING, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 2:24-cv-01395-TLN-CKD (PS)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff Orion Douglas Memmott’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed May 15, 2024, and Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
(“FAC”) filed on August 23, 2024.1 (ECF Nos. 2-3.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing the
commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person that is unable
to pay such fees). The undersigned declines to rule at this time on the IFP motion, however,
because an initial review of this action indicates that Plaintiff filed this case in the wrong district
court. Instead, the court orders Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed
without prejudice or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
1 Because Plaintiff is representing himself, this action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant
to Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 5:25-cv-00034-KDB-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/24/24 Page 1 of 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
2
Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to diversity jurisdiction against Defendants Bonnie
Manning, Daniel Koehler and C. Jason Ralston (“Defendants”), who all reside in North Carolina.
(ECF No. 3 at ¶¶ 3, 8-10.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants conspired to steal Plaintiff’s interest in the
real property located at 2829 Long Circle, Iron Station, North Carolina 28080. (See generally
ECF No. 3; see also Id. at ¶ 9 (“The real property which is the subject of this action is located at
2829 Long Circle, Iron Station, North Carolina 28080”.).)
Plaintiff states venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of California because “[a]
substantial part of the events or omissions and the primary elements of the events giving rise to
the claims sued hereon, and where Plaintiff suffered violations of his rights, occurred in the
Eastern District of California.” (Id. at ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also states venue is appropriate here because
“Plaintiff resides in the Eastern District of California.” (Id.) In his First Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff also states that he “relied upon the oral and written assurances and agreements Plaintiff
received from [Defendant] Manning at his home in Chico, California”. (Id. at ¶ 24.)
Defects in venue may be raised by the court on its own where the defendant has not yet
responded to the complaint and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790
F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986) (permitting courts to transfer case on its own initiative, “so long
as the parties are first given the opportunity to present their views on the issue”). Venue in a civil
action is generally proper in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
reside in the same 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 (3) a judicial district in which
any defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Here, no Defendant is alleged to reside in the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b). (See also ECF No. 3 at ¶¶ 3, 8-10.) Plaintiff concedes all the Defendants are
located in North Carolina. As for § 1391(b)(2), it appears to the undersigned highly unlikely that
any of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this district. Review of
the First Amended Complaint, the events or omissions at issue appear to have occurred “mainly”
in North Carolina. (See ECF No. 3 at 11-23.) Additionally, the subject real property in dispute is
Case 5:25-cv-00034-KDB-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/24/24 Page 2 of 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
3
located in Lincoln County, North Carolina. Finally, even if § 1391(b)(3) applied here, assuming
no district could provide a proper venue under §§ 1391 (b)(1) and (b)(2), Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint does not show that any Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this
judicial district. There is no indication that any individual Defendant is domiciled in California
giving rise to general personal jurisdiction over them. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations,
S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011).
When a case is filed in the wrong district, the district court “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.” 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this
action should not be dismissed for improper venue or transferred to the Western District of North
Carolina. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall file a
response. In his response, Plaintiff must explain to the Court why the case should remain in the
Eastern District of California.
Dated: September 24, 2024
4, memm1395.24
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00034-KDB-SCR Document 4 Filed 09/24/24 Page 3 of 3