Jones v. US Congress 1989 - 1996 Committees

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ELVIS WAYNE JONES, NO: 2:19-CV-0432-TOR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 9 v. US CONGRESS 1989-1996 COMMITTEES, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS and US JUDICIAL CONVERENCE COURTS, Defendants.

14 On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff Elvis Wayne Jones, a Texas state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint on the form provided by this Court, including attachments. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff did not pay the $400 fee ($350 filing fee, plus $50 administrative fee) to commence this action or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

19 Plaintiff presents no facts from which the Court could infer that the Eastern District of Washington is the appropriate venue for his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 1391(b). None of the claims appear to have occurred here and none of the Defendants reside here. When venue is improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 4 1406(a). The Court finds that the interest of justice would not be served by transferring this case to another forum.

6 A review of other Court’s records indicate that Mr. Jones is precluded from proceeding in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), absent a showing that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Jones v. Texas, et al., 7:08- CV-00196-0 (N.D. Tex.) (denying in forma pauperis status based upon three strikes, November 26, 2008); Jones v. The 1996 Texas Attorney General, et al., 1:09-cv- 00079-JMS-BMK (D. Hawaii) (denying in forma pauperis status based upon three strikes); Jones v. City of Austin, et al., 3:09-cv-00077-JWS (D. Alaska, May 18, 2009) (three strikes order prohibiting Mr. Jones from brining any other actions without payment of fees in any federal court in the United States unless he can demonstrate he is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”). Therefore, even if Plaintiff had properly presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court cannot infer from his indecipherable assertions that Plaintiff has made the requisite showing. Consequently, transfer of this case to the District of Texas is not warranted.

20 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 (1) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. See In re Hall, 939 F.2d 802, (9th Cir. 1991).

4 (2) Any request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

5 (3) All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

6 (4) The Court will not entertain any further briefing or motions, including motions to reconsider, in this DISMISSED and CLOSED case.

8 ITIS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this Order, 9|| provide a copy to Plaintiff and CLOSE the file. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and would lack any arguable basis in law or fact.

12 DATED January 3, 2020.

14 Sues Of Grn Chief United States District Judge