(PS) Brooks v. Fleck 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
MARGARET BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CROWLEY FLECK, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 2:25-cv-3278-DJC-SCR
FINDING & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and this matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local
Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 7, 2026, the undersigned explained that
the allegations in the Complaint failed to establish either venue in this District or the Court’s
personal jurisdiction over the defendants:
Plaintiff lists her address as Monterrey, California. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Plaintiff names as Defendants three individuals located in Montana.
Id. at 2-3. The Complaint appears to allege various forms of
“wrongdoing, gaslighting, harassment,” and other abuse from 2022
through 2024, from various individuals in Illinois, Texas, Colorado,
Minnesota, and Montana. Id. at 5-6.
The federal venue statute provides that 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 (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
Case 2:25-cv-03278-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 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
to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Personal jurisdiction, in turn, requires that a nonresident defendant
“have at least ‘minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum such that
the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice’.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor
Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted).
Personal jurisdiction can be general or specific. 	For general
jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant, the defendant must
engage in continuous and systematic general business contacts that
“approximate 	physical 	presence” 	in 	the 	forum 	state. 	Id.
Alternatively, for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a
defendant’s specific conduct:
“(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his
activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or
resident 	thereof; 	or 	perform 	some 	act 	by 	which 	he
purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting
activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws;
(2) The claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the
defendant’s forum related activities; and
(3) The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play
and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.”
Id. at 802.
All three Defendants reside in Montana rather than California. ECF
No. 1 at 2-3. Although the Complaint alleges various forms of abuse
across multiple states, it does not list this state among them, despite
Plaintiff residing in the Northern District of California. Id. at 1, 5-6.
Venue accordingly appears to be lacking in the Eastern District of
California. Moreover, the absence of allegations of Defendants’
conduct in California apparently leaves this Court without general or
specific jurisdiction.
ECF No. 3 at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”), within 21
days, as to why this action should not be dismissed due to improper venue and/or the absence of
personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 3 at 3. Plaintiff responded to this OSC on January 26, 2026. ECF
No. 4.
Plaintiff’s response, however, does not suggest additional facts that would establish either
venue or personal jurisdiction. It primarily emphasizes the factual allegations underlying the
claims against defendants in various other actions pending in this District. To the extent that
Plaintiff alleges obstruction of civil proceedings in another federal district (ECF No. 4 at 1-2), this
does not transform this District into an alternative venue for such action.
Case 2:25-cv-03278-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 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
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT this action be
dismissed without prejudice for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
objections with the court. Such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Local Rule 304(d). Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
DATED: February 9, 2026
Case 2:25-cv-03278-DJC-SCR Document 5 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3