Johnson v. Brady et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JABARI JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 24-cv-703 SMD/DLM
JILL BRADY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jabari Johnson’s pro se Prisoner Civil Rights
Complaint (Doc. 1) (Complaint). Plaintiff is incarcerated in Canon City, Colorado. See Doc. 1
at 2. The Complaint brings civil rights claims against various Colorado officials. Id. at 1-4.
The Complaint’s caption cites the Colorado Federal Court. Id. at 1. However, Plaintiff mailed
the pleading to this Court (i.e., the District of New Mexico). Id. at 13. Defendants have not yet
been served, as the case is still in the screening phase. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring sua
sponte screening of all prisoner complaints against government officials).
Before examining the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will evaluate whether 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). Section 1391 of Title 28 permits a civil action
to be brought in:
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides …;
Case 1:24-cv-00703-SMD-DLM Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
(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 (1) is not met. The parties all reside in Colorado, and it is not clear this Court
has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) (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”). As to subsection (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 the allegations as true, none of the alleged wrongdoing occurred in New Mexico. The
claims stem from events in a Colorado prison and/or a Colorado criminal proceeding. Subsection
(3) does not apply. It appears Plaintiff 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.
Case 1:24-cv-00703-SMD-DLM Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Bartile Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1167 (10th Cir. 2010). The
transfer must also be in the interest of justice; otherwise the matter should be dismissed 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 also Faulkenburg v. Weir,
350 Fed. App’x 208, 210 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying the Cline factors to a venue transfer).
On balance, the above factors favor a transfer to Colorado. The case should have been
filed in that Court, and based on the caption, Plaintiff may have intended to file in Colorado. Most
evidence would come from Colorado witnesses or jail/court records, and all Defendants appear to
be located there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), (c); Doc. 1. The alleged wrongdoing appears to
have occurred between 2017 and 2024; there is a chance some claims may be time-barred if filed
anew. 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 will transfer this case to the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall TRANSFER the
Complaint (Doc. 1) to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado; and CLOSE
the pending case in this Court.
SO ORDERED.
………………………………………….
SARAH M. DAVENPORT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:24-cv-00703-SMD-DLM Document 4 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3