Archelus v. Sunrise Senior Living of Decatur

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
AMELINA ARCHELUS
v. 	Civil No. 26-cv-184-LM-AJ
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING OF DECATUR
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Appearing in forma pauperis without a lawyer, plaintiff, Amelina Archelus, filed a
complaint (Doc. No. 1) against Sunrise Senior Living of Decatur, Georgia (“Sunrise”), her
former employer. The matter is before this court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
LEGAL STANDARD
The court screens complaints filed by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis to
determine whether the plaintiff has asserted any non-frivolous claim upon which relief might be
granted, seeks monetary relief from any defendant who is immune, or fails to invoke this court’s
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). Where the defense of improper venue is
“‘obvious from the face of the complaint and no further factual record is required to be
developed,’” the court may, sua sponte, dismiss the case. Cox v. Rushie, No. CA 13-11308-
PBS, 2013 WL 3197655, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86794, at *14, (D. Mass. June 18, 2013)
(quoting Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th Cir. 2006)); see also Wilkinson v.
Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 622 F. App’x 805, 809 (11th Cir. Fla. 2015). The court construes the
pleadings of pro se parties liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
DISCUSSION
The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff late 2022/early 2023 worked for Sunrise in Georgia,
that a Sunrise client assaulted her on November 28, 2022, and that the assault resulted in a brain
Case 1:26-cv-00184-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
injury and a permanent disability. 	Plaintiff alleges that workers compensation coverage for the
injury was initially denied, and that her benefits were suspended several weeks before she
returned to work in late February 2023. A health care provider who examined her in June 2023
ordered a neuropsychological evaluation and physical therapy, which she asserts she could not
undergo because she lacked workers compensation coverage. She asserts that her condition
worsened. 	Plaintiff further asserts that Sunrise provided false or faulty information on her
workers compensation claim form, and that the information provided was the reason for the
denial of her claim and the premature suspension of her benefits. She asserts state law tort
claims against Sunrise and seeks damages.
The absence of proper venue provides grounds for dismissal of this action. Federal venue
law states, in pertinent part, that a civil action may only be brought in “a judicial district in which
any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,”
or in “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.” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2). And if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought,
a civil action may be filed in any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to the action. Id. § 1391(b)(3).
No defendant is alleged to reside in New Hampshire, and no part of the events at issue
occurred in New Hampshire. There are no allegations suggesting that this court has personal
jurisdiction over Sunrise with respect to any of plaintiff’s claims. None of the allegations in the
Complaint suggest that this court is the proper venue for this action.
A court may cure a defect in venue by transferring a case to any district where the case
could have been brought, if the transfer is in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Case 1:26-cv-00184-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Decatur, Georgia, is located in the Northern District of Georgia, which could be a place where
venue is proper. Georgia law, however, establishes a two-year statute of limitations for personal
injury claims. See Ga. Code Ann. § 9-3-33. This case, filed in March 2026, concerns events
occurring in 2022 and 2023. The record here does not show that a transfer of this case would
serve the interests of justice.1 Accordingly, the district judge should dismiss this action for lack
of proper venue, without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to litigate her claims in the Northern
District of Georgia or in any other court.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should dismiss this action, without prejudice,
for improper venue. Then, the clerk should enter judgment and close the case.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of
receipt of this notice. The objection period may be extended upon motion. Failure to file any
objection 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). Only those issues raised in
the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations omitted).
________________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
March 27, 2026
cc: 	Amelina Archelus, pro se
1 Plaintiff filed a similar complaint against Sunrise in the District of Vermont in 2025,
approximately six months before she filed this case. See Archelus v. Sunrise Senior Living of
Decatur, No. 2:25-cv-767-mkl (D. Vt., filed Sept. 16, 2025). That court in January 2026
dismissed her Complaint with leave to amend for lack of proper venue. See id., 2026 WL 45194,
2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4342, 2026 LX 68616 (D. Vt. Jan. 7, 2026). That case remained pending
as of the date of this Report and Recommendation.
Case 1:26-cv-00184-LM-AJ Document 3 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3