Griffin v. Montgomery, City of et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Willie R. Griffin
v. Civil No. 25-cv-310-JL-AJ
City of Montgomery, Alabama, et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff Willie R. Griffin, appearing in forma pauperis, filed a
Complaint (Doc. No. 1) against a number of defendants, complaining about treatment
he received at or around various businesses in Montgomery, Alabama. The Complaint
is before this court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR
4.3(d)(2).
Preliminary Review Standard
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court takes
as true the facts asserted in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from
those facts, strips away the legal conclusions, and considers whether the complaint
states a claim upon which relief might be granted. See Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor,
723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
In determining whether a pro se complaint states a claim, the Court construes it
liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The Court may
dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant is immune from
the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be granted,
1 Plaintiff names the following defendants in the Complaint (Doc. No. 1): City of
Montgomery, Alabama; State of Alabama; Montgomery Police Department; the Federal
Library in Montgomery; an Illinois courthouse; the United States Supreme Court; and
the following Montgomery, Alabama businesses: Circle K Store 318; Embass Holtle,
Starbuck; USA Star Gas Station; Amazon Store, and the Coosa Hotel.
Case 1:25-cv-00310-JL-AJ Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3

2
or the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86794 at *14, 2013 WL
3197655 at *4 (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).
Background
Mr. Griffin asserts a variety of claims in this case arising out of a series of
incidents which occurred in 2024 and 2025, at or near businesses located in
Montgomery, Alabama. Liberally construed, the court finds that Mr. Griffin asserts that
the defendants, among other things, falsely accused him of stealing, would not let him
use their bathrooms, barred him from their premises for no reason, called the local
police who took and retained Mr. Griffin’s suitcase, failed to provide him with items he
purchased or tried to purchase, and caused people to “protest” and “boycott” him.
Discussion
Under federal venue law, 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). The Complaint, which is
before this court for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2),
asserts no party’s or claim’s connection to New Hampshire. Mr. Griffin has not alleged
Case 1:25-cv-00310-JL-AJ Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3

3
any facts demonstrating any connection between the District of New Hampshire and
any of the incidents, parties, and claims that would satisfy the venue requirements of
federal law. Accordingly, this court lacks venue over this matter, and the district judge
should dismiss the Complaint, in its entirety, for lack of proper venue, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a), without prejudice to Mr. Griffin’s ability to bring his suit in a jurisdiction
where venue is proper.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should: dismiss the case without
prejudice for improper venue; deny all of the pending motions in this case without
prejudice; and direct the Clerk to enter judgment and close this 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
January 14, 2026
cc: Willie R. Griffin, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-00310-JL-AJ Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3