Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-09325
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Judge Martinez-Olguin ordered Fouts to explain why venue belongs in California or consent to transfer.
John R. Fouts and his minor child, as well as the defendants named in the action, are affected by the court’s order requiring Fouts to address venue. The case was not dismissed or transferred by this order.
What happened
In Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, John R. Fouts brought a self-represented case on behalf of himself and his minor child, who the opinion says live in Kentucky and have multiple medical conditions. He alleged problems involving benefits and prescription drugs, housing conditions, medical care, and a child-protective-services investigation, and he requested emergency and permanent orders.
The court questioned whether the Northern District of California was the proper place for the case. The opinion says the alleged events occurred in Kentucky, and Fouts did not identify a California address for any defendant or otherwise show that a defendant lived in California. The court had not yet dismissed or transferred the case.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin ordered Fouts to file, by January 23, 2025, a response of no more than five pages explaining why venue is proper in California, or to consent to transfer to a proper venue. The order says the case will be dismissed with prejudice if he does not respond by that date.
The detailed version
- Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · No. 3:24-cv-09325
- Martinez-Olguin
- Dec. 23, 2024
Background
John R. Fouts initiated this self-represented action on behalf of himself and his minor child on December 18, 2024. He also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction, permanent restraining order, and permanent protective order. The opinion says that Fouts and his child are Kentucky residents with multiple medical conditions.
Fouts alleged numerous statutory and constitutional violations involving Kentucky and federal agencies and other defendants. The allegations concerned, among other things, failure to receive Social Security checks and prescription drugs by mail; mold and other hazardous conditions in his dwelling; inability to obtain adequate medical care; and an allegedly improper Child Protective Services investigation. The defendants listed in the complaint included the Commonwealth of Kentucky, several Kentucky agencies and entities, federal agencies, healthcare organizations, housing-related entities, a school, and unnamed defendants.
Venue analysis
Venue is the federal district where a civil case may properly be litigated. The court explained that federal law generally permits a case to be filed where all defendants reside in the same state as the district, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. If venue is improper, the court must dismiss the case or, if justice favors it, transfer the case to a district where it could have been brought.
The court reviewed the complaint and motion and concluded that venue appeared improper in the Northern District of California. Fouts asserted that at least one defendant was located in that district and that the other defendants were located in California, but he did not list a California address for any defendant or otherwise allege that any defendant resided there. The court also found that Fouts alleged no events or omissions giving rise to his claims occurred in California. His assertion that the Western District of Kentucky was unsuitable because he could not receive an unbiased and impartial experience did not establish proper venue in California.
Order
The court ordered Fouts to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take the stated action—by January 23, 2025. His response must be no longer than five pages and must explain why venue in the Northern District of California is proper. Alternatively, he may consent to transfer the case to a proper venue. The court did not dismiss or transfer the case in this order. It stated that the case will be dismissed with prejudice if Fouts does not file a response by January 23, 2025. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin signed the order on December 23, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.