Justice For All v. APLA Health & Wellness

Background

The plaintiff invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged that APLA Health & Wellness violated his rights in connection with a housing dispute in Los Angeles, California. He also attempted to assert claims based on his disagreement with orders issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California in a similar action.

The plaintiff filed a 402-page motion seeking a temporary restraining order and a separate statement under Rule 65(b)(1), but did not file a complaint. He also did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees. He filed under the name “Justice for All” and sought to proceed under a pseudonym. Because the filings included his real name, the court limited electronic access to those submissions to case participants.

Venue Analysis

The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred or property is located, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court also discussed the federal venue rule for civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The court determined from the plaintiff’s submissions that the defendant was a California nonprofit organization, the housing dispute occurred in Los Angeles County, and the related federal court proceedings also occurred there. The plaintiff alleged no facts showing that the defendant resided or conducted business in the Southern District of New York or that events giving rise to the claims occurred there. The court therefore found that venue was improper in New York.

Disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, when the interests of justice support it, transfer the case to a district where it could have been brought. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California because the claims arose in Los Angeles County and the defendant resided and conducted business there.

The court left to the transferee court the questions whether the plaintiff could proceed without prepaying fees, whether to consider the temporary-restraining-order motion, and whether to allow the plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym. The Clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions. The court also directed the plaintiff to stop contacting chambers by email or other direct means and to submit filings through the Pro Se Intake Unit. The New York court closed the case, directed that no summons issue from that court, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.