Johnson v. Gonzales et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JABARI JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. CIV 24-0531 JB/GBW
FNU GONZALES, FNU FERGUSON, FNU
GEOFFREY, FNU SNEED, KATHLEEN
BOYD
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint, filed May 28, 2024 (Doc. 1)(“Complaint”). Plaintiff Jabari Johnson is proceeding pro
se. Johnson is a Colorado State prisoner, and the Complaint brings civil rights claims against
various Colorado officials. See Complaint 1-9. The Defendants have not been served, as the
case is still in the screening phase, during which courts conduct sua sponte review of prisoner
complaints against government officials for cognizable claims and grounds for dismissal. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
Before examining the merits of the Plaintiff’s claims, the Court evaluates whether the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is the proper venue for this proceeding.
See Johnson v. Christopher, 233 Fed. App’x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2007)(analyzing improper venue
and noting “the district court has discretion” to evaluate the matter on screening).1 Section 1391
of Title 28 of the United States Code permits a civil action to be brought in:
1 Johnson v. Christopher is an unpublished opinion, but the Court can rely on an
unpublished Tenth Circuit opinion to the extent its reasoned analysis is persuasive in the case
before it. See 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A) (“Unpublished decisions are not precedential, but may be cited
for their persuasive value.”). The Tenth Circuit states:
Case 1:24-cv-00531-JB-GBW Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides . . . ;
(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
(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 … personal jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Subsection (b)(1) is not met. The parties reside in Colorado, and it is not clear the Court
has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) (stating that, for venue
purposes, an entity resides in any district “in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject
to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question”). Subsection (b)(2)
also does not apply. Under subsection (b)(2), courts must examine “the nature of the plaintiff’s
claims and the acts or omissions underlying those claims,” and determine whether “substantial
events material to those claims occurred” in this district. Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs,
Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1166 (10th Cir. 2010). Accepting Johnson’s allegations as true, none of the
alleged wrongdoing occurs in New Mexico. The claims stem from events in Colorado.
Subsection (b)(3) also does not apply. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(3)(“[I]f there is no district in
which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which
In this circuit, unpublished orders are not binding precedent . . . and we have
generally determined that citation to unpublished opinions is not favored.
However, if an unpublished opinion or order and judgment has persuasive value
with respect to a material issue in a case and would assist the court in its disposition,
we allow a citation to that decision.
United States v. Austin, 426 F.3d 1266, 1274 (10th Cir. 2005). The Court concludes that Johnson
v. Christopher and Faulkenburg v. Weir, 350 F. App’x 208 (10th Cir. 2009), have persuasive value
with respect to a material issue, and will assist the Court in its disposition of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
Case 1:24-cv-00531-JB-GBW Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”). Johnson
can file an action in the Colorado federal court.
Where, as here, venue is improper, the Court may transfer the civil action to any other
district “where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The following discretionary
factors must weigh in favor of the transfer:
the plaintiff’s choice of forum; the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of
proof, including the availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of
witnesses; the cost of making the necessary proof; questions as to the enforceability
of a judgment if one is obtained; relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;
difficulties that may arise from congested dockets; the possibility of the existence
of questions arising in the area of conflict of laws; the advantage of having a local
court determine questions of local law; and[ ] all other considerations of a practical
nature that make a trial easy, expeditious and economical.
Emps. Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d at 1167 (quoting Chrysler Credit Corp. v.
Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)). The transfer also must be in the
interest of justice; otherwise, the Court may dismiss the matter without prejudice. Courts consider
“whether the claims would be time barred if filed anew in the proper forum, whether the claims
alleged are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were filed in good faith . . . .” In re Cline,
531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). See Faulkenburg v. Weir, 350 F. App’x 208, 210 (10th
Cir. 2009)(applying the Cline factors to a venue transfer).
On balance, the above factors favor a transfer to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado. Johnson should have filed the case in that court, and based on the caption,
Johnson may have intended to file in Colorado. See Complaint at 1 (blacking out the district
court’s name from the form). If this case proceeds to discovery, most evidence will come from
Colorado witnesses or jail/court records, and all of the Defendants appear to be located in
Colorado. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c); Complaint at 1-9. The alleged wrongdoing occurs
2024, see Complaint at 4, 7; the Colorado statute of limitations may bar some claims if Johnson
Case 1:24-cv-00531-JB-GBW Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
files them again, see Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-131(5). The Court also finds no prejudice to the
Defendants, as they have not yet been served or obtained counsel in New Mexico. A venue
transfer is therefore proper, convenient, and in the interest of justice. The Court, therefore,
transfers this case to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall: (i) transfer this matter to the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado; (ii) terminate all pending motions, as they appear on
this docket; and (iii) close the pending case in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico.
…………………………………………._
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Parties:
Jabari Johnson
Canon City, Colorado
Plaintiff pro se
Case 1:24-cv-00531-JB-GBW Document 3 Filed 06/01/26 Page 4 of 4