1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 20-cv-00481-MMC

6 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 7 v.

8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 On June 16, 2020, the Court granted plaintiff Heath Vincent Fulkerson’s Motion, 12 filed June 8, 2020, “to Submit Amended Complaint,” and ordered plaintiff to show cause, 13 in writing and no later than June 26, 2020, why the above-titled action should not be 14 dismissed for improper venue. Thereafter, plaintiff filed, on June 19, 2020, a “Request to 15 Submit Amended Complaint,” as well as a proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”), 16 and, on June 23, 2020, a “Request to Submit Points of Authority for Fault of Each 17 Defendant,” which filings the Court construes as plaintiff’s response to the above- 18 referenced order to show cause. Having read and considered plaintiff’s filings, the Court 19 deems the matter suitable for decision on the written submissions and rules as follows. 20 In its order to show cause, the Court noted the above-titled action is brought solely 21 against United States agencies, and, citing

(e), found venue in any such 22 action is only proper in the “judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, 23 (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 24 substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the 25 plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” See

(e). 26 Pursuant to § 1391(e), the Court further found venue in the instant action is not proper in 27 the Northern District of California, but rather in the District of Columbia, where federal 1 agencies reside for purposes of venue under § 1391(e)(1), see Williams v. United States, 2 No. C-01-0024 EDL,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2001), or in Nevada, 3 where the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred and where the only 4 property noted in either the initial or amended complaint, specifically, plaintiff’s residence, 5 is located. As set forth below, plaintiff has failed to provide any basis to alter those 6 findings. 7 First, in his Request to Submit Amended Complaint, plaintiff states he “revised the 8 complaint to explain the choice of venue.” (See Req., filed June 19, 2020, at 1:16.) In 9 that regard, plaintiff, in his proposed SAC, alleges the “venue was chosen . . . to keep the 10 corruption and illegal government activities further away from the court preceding [sic].” 11 (See Proposed SAC, filed June 19, 2020, at 1:27.) In addition, plaintiff alleges, he “has 12 encountered numerous people following him, trying to intimidate him, people stealing 13 court documents from his home, his vehicle, and from the U.S. Post Office” (see

at 14 1:28) and he “has also encountered communication fraud with regards of communicating 15 with the district court” (see

). Even assuming the truth of such allegations, 16 however, none provide a basis for finding venue is proper in the Northern District of 17 California. See

. 18 Next, even if the Court were to grant plaintiff leave to file his proposed SAC, none 19 of the allegations therein suffice to establish venue in this district. The only defendants 20 named in the proposed SAC are the same federal government agencies against whom 21 plaintiff brought his initial complaint, and, consequently, to the extent plaintiff is relying on 22 the residence of those defendants, venue is only proper in the District of Columbia. See 23

(e)(1); Williams,

, at *1. To the extent plaintiff is 24 relying on the circumstances underlying his claims, the proposed SAC lacks any factual 25 allegations to support a finding that any events or omissions occurred in, or any property 26 is situated in, the Northern District of California. Rather, in said proposed pleading, 27 plaintiff alleges and seeks relief based on “events occurring in the State of Nevada” (see 1 business, both of which, plaintiff alleges, are located in Reno, Nevada (see Compl., filed 2 || Jan. 22, 2020, at 1; Amended Compl., filed June 8, 2020, at 3:1; Proposed SAC at 3:25), 3 || thereby eliminating any other grounds upon which venue may be based in the Northern 4 || District of California, see

(e)(2)&(3). 5 Lastly, nothing in plaintiff's Request to Submit Points of Authority for Fault of Each 6 || Defendant, whereby plaintiff describes in further detail the wrongdoing alleged in the 7 || proposed SAC, provides a basis for finding venue is proper in this district. As with the 8 || proposed SAC, such filing fails to describe any event occurring here. 9 Accordingly, the Court finds the Northern District of California is not a proper 10 || venue for the above-titled action. 11 Pursuant to

, when a case is filed in an improper venue, the g 12 district court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any s 13 || district or division in which it could have been brought.” See

(a). Here, 14 rather than transfer the case to one of the two districts in which venue is proper, the 8 15 || Court finds it preferable to dismiss the instant action and allow plaintiff to refile his claims 16 || in the district of his choice. g 17 Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to S 18 || refiling in the District Court for the District of Nevada or the District Court for the District of 19 || Columbia. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 || Dated: July 7, 2020 babel Chat INE M. CHESNEY 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28