Thompson v. Broadus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
GOLDY THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CALVIN BROADUS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 2:25-cv-1279
Judge James L. Graham
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Marion Correctional Institution in Marion, Ohio, brings this pro
se civil action for copyright infringement against Defendants Calvin Broadus and Do-It-Fluid,
alleging that Defendants violated “the rights to the use of the name DO-IT-FLUID.” (Doc. 1-1 at
5). This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 1),
and the Court’s own motion to consider venue.
This is the second time Plaintiff has improperly filed this action in this Court, although he
failed to disclose the prior action in this most recent Complaint. (See Complaint, id. at 2). The
Undersigned takes judicial notice that in August 2024, Plaintiff filed Thompson v. Broadus, Case
No. 2:24cv3837 (S.D. Ohio), which set forth identical facts and Defendants. 	The Undersigned
determined that venue was improper, because none of the named Defendants were alleged to reside
in Ohio, and the events underlying the action took place in either Toledo, Ohio, or in the state of
California. See id. (Transfer Order, August 16, 2024, Doc. 2). Rather than dismissing the case,
the Undersigned transferred it to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. Id.
Case: 2:25-cv-01279-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Upon transfer to the Northern District, the Honorable James G. Carr dismissed the case,
finding venue was also improper in the Northern District of Ohio and declining to transfer the case
to California on the basis that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. 	See Thompson v.
Broadus, Case No. 3:24cv1400, 2024 WL 5146002, at *1–2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 17, 2024). Judge
Carr determined that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the United States
Copyright Office registered his copyright claim as is required to file a copyright infringement suit
in federal court. Id.
Shortly thereafter, on January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed an identical action in the Western
Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See Thompson
v. Broadus, Case No. 2:25cv573-MCS-AGR (C.D. Cal.). There, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file
an amended complaint because the initial complaint failed to state a claim for relief. See id. (Jan.
27, 2025 Order, Doc. 13 at PageID 65, finding Plaintiff’s allegations that he “copyrighted and
patented ‘Do-It-Fluid’ at a post office and received an employer identification number from the
IRS under the name Do-It-Fluid” did not “raise a plausible inference that he owns a copyright
registered with the appropriate federal agency, the United States Copyright Office”). 	Plaintiff
failed to file an amended complaint, and the case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. See id. (Doc. 15).
“[W]hether venue is wrong or improper . . . is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.”
Atl. Marine Const. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tx., 571 U.S. 49, 55 (2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Under that statute, 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: 2:25-cv-01279-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
(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)(1)–(3). If venue is not proper under one of three enumerated categories, the
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). The decision to dismiss or transfer a
case based on improper venue is within a district court’s discretion. Emrit v. Jules, No. 23-1722,
2024 WL 533340, at *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024).
Plaintiff alleges that both Defendants reside in Diamond Bar, California, which falls within
the Central District of California, and he does not identify any act or omission taking place in this
district. This means venue is improper here, and the interests of justice do not support transfer.
Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee, and nothing in the record suggests Plaintiff could not have
brought or could not still bring this case in the proper California district court. In fact, Plaintiff
previously pursued a nearly identical action before the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, and his case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See,
e.g., Shaik v. Finnegan, No. 24-12427, 2025 WL 1181787, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 23, 2025)
(interests of justice do not require transfer where plaintiff “has already filed an ‘exact copy’” of
case in proper court).
The Undersigned RECOMMENDS this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for
lack of venue. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED as
moot. (Doc. 1)
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
December 18, 2025 	/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-01279-JLG-KAJ Doc #: 6 Filed: 12/18/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>