Bennett v. Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Bennett v. Bureau of Prisons

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAWN J. BENNETT, 92603-051, Case No. 24-cv-06161-CRB (PR)

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. (ECF Nos. 6 & 10) 10 BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut (FCI 13 Danbury) serving a 20-year sentence from the United States District Court for the District of 14 Maryland, has filed a pro se complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), FCI Danbury 15 and various officials at both claiming improper denial of early release under the First Step Act 16 (FSA), unlawful retaliation and denial of adequate medical care. Plaintiff also seeks leave to 17 proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(ECF No. 6), which based solely on her 18 affidavit of poverty is GRANTED. 19 A civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any 20 agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the 21 United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any 22 judicial district in which (A) a defendant in the action resides, (B) a substantial part of the events 23 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject 24 of the action is situated, or (C) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.

28 U.S.C. § 1391

(e)(1). The proper venue for plaintiff’s action accordingly may be in the District of 25 Connecticut or in the District of Columbia but not in the Northern District of California. 26 If a case is filed in the wrong venue, the district court has discretion to dismiss the case or 27 ] circumstances, this action will be DISMISSED without prejudice to plaintiff filing it in a proper 2 || judicial district under

28 U.S.C. § 1391

(e)(1). See In re Hall,

939 F.2d 802

, 804 (9th Cir. 1991) 3 (determination of improper venue does not go to merits of case and therefore dismissal for 4 || improper venue must be without prejudice). 5 The clerk is instructed to close the case and terminate all pending motions therein (see ECF 6 || Nos. 6 & 10) as moot. 7 IT ISSO ORDERED. 8 Dated: October 22, 2024 9 2K CHARLES R. BREYER 10 United States District Judge 1] 12

15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown