Cruz v. United Parcel Service Inc.

Background

Cesar Cruz, who represented himself, filed the action and received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously screened and dismissed his initial complaint and amended complaints. Cruz then filed a third amended complaint.

The third amended complaint concerned two events during Cruz’s employment with United Parcel Service, Inc.: a June 29, 2020 report of workplace misconduct to a United Parcel Service human-resources representative and a July 11, 2020 workplace injury. The complaint named United Parcel Service, Inc.; International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 542; attorney James Paul Rose; the Law Office of James Paul Roe; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; and Michael Sullivan & Associates LLP. Cruz asserted two claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

Screening and Venue

Because Cruz was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court explained that screening requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant immune from such relief. The court also noted that complaints must provide a short and plain statement of the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court focused its decision on venue—the proper federal district for the action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may generally be based on where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

The court found that the complaint’s allegations did not sufficiently establish venue in the Northern District of California. The complaint placed the defendants’ identified residences or offices in the Eastern or Southern Districts of California. It also appeared that events relevant to Cruz’s claims occurred in the Southern District, including an event involving the Imperial County District Attorney’s Office. The court said that Cruz’s residence was the only apparent connection to the Northern District, but a plaintiff’s residence alone was insufficient to establish venue.

The court further stated that, because the allegations were inadequate, it could not determine which district would be an appropriate venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or transfer it if the interests of justice support transfer. The court dismissed rather than transferring the case.

Disposition

Judge Wise DISMISSED the third amended complaint for improper venue WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The court stated that Cruz had failed to correct the deficiencies despite two opportunities to amend. The clerk was directed to close the case file.