Fouts v. Commonwealth of Kentucky

Background

John R. Fouts and his minor child filed a complaint and motions seeking preliminary injunctive relief, a permanent restraining order, and a permanent protective order. Fouts proceeded without a lawyer. He alleged numerous statutory and constitutional violations involving, 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 opinion states that Fouts and his child are residents of Louisville, Kentucky and that the alleged events occurred in Kentucky.

The court had previously ordered Fouts to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed or transferred for improper venue because the filings showed no apparent connection to the Northern District of California. Fouts's response did not identify a plaintiff, Kentucky agency, or individual establishing proper venue in California, and it did not state that any relevant event or omission occurred there. The court also rejected the suggestion that the presence of federal agency defendants made venue proper in every district where a federal agency had a regional office.

Venue Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue generally is proper where a defendant resides in the circumstances specified by the statute, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court determined that venue was not proper in the Northern District of California because no party resided there, the plaintiffs and many defendants were in Louisville, and the relevant events occurred in Kentucky.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss an action filed in an improper venue or transfer it when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court concluded that transfer would serve the interests of justice and allow Fouts's case to be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court further stated that, even if venue had been proper in California, the Western District of Kentucky was a more convenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because most parties and the events at issue were there.

Disposition

The court TRANSFERRED the action to the Western District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), or alternatively under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The order transferred the case; it did not decide whether Fouts's underlying statutory or constitutional claims were valid, and it did not rule on those claims' merits.