UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

CEDRIC GREENE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00734-JSD ) ST. VINCENT DE PAUL – ) CARDINAL MANNING CENTER, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on self-represented Plaintiff Cedric Greene’s application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. Based on the financial information provided in the application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The Court grants the application and waives the filing fee. See

(a)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, this case will be dismissed for improper venue. See

(b), 1406(a). Background Based on a search of Court records, Plaintiff has filed more than 30 cases in this Court since March 5, 2025. Six of these cases were filed against Defendant St. Vincent De Paul – Cardinal Manning Center. At least nineteen of Plaintiff’s cases have already been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue. In addition, the Court is aware that several other federal courts have already imposed filing restrictions on Plaintiff. See Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 750 Fed. App’x 661, 666 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2018) (noting filing restrictions imposed on Plaintiff in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and federal district courts in Kansas, Utah, California, and Nevada). In January 2024, the

United States Court of Federal Claims estimated that Plaintiff had filed more than three hundred cases in federal courts throughout the country. See Greene v. U.S.,

, 339 (2024), appeal dismissed, No. 2024-1475,

(Fed. Cir. May 17, 2024). The Complaint Plaintiff brings this suit against Defendant St. Vincent De Paul – Cardinal

Manning Center, a homeless shelter in Los Angeles, California. ECF. No. 1. Plaintiff complains that in November 2021, while he was staying at the shelter, he was subjected to searches and security screenings outside the premises “in the public eye.”

. Plaintiff states that these “unconstitutional guidelines” were designed to harass him so that he would leave the shelter voluntarily.

Plaintiff believes this violated his privacy

rights and constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

. Discussion Plaintiff has not established that venue is proper in this Court. Defendant resides in California and the events complained of occurred in California. Pursuant to

(b), 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, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in California. Under

(a), when a case is filed in a district where venue is not proper, the District Court can either dismiss the action, or if it is in the interest of justice, the Court can transfer the case to any district in which it could have been brought. Because of Plaintiffs history of vexatious litigation, the Court finds it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this case. The Court will dismiss this case for improper venue. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of proper venue. See

, 1406(a). An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Dated this 7" day of July, 2025.

f LPR: f de leagh. STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE