Fulkerson v. U.S. Department of Justice
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-00481
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Fulkerson v. U.S. Department of Justice, Judge Chesney granted an amended complaint but ordered Fulkerson to explain why venue should not be dismissed.
Heath Vincent Fulkerson and the U.S. Department of Justice and other defendants; the order required Fulkerson to address venue before the case could proceed in the Northern District of California.
What happened
In Fulkerson v. U.S. Department of Justice, Heath Vincent Fulkerson sued the U.S. Department of Justice and other defendants. He asked to file an amended complaint after serving the defendants.
The court said the case involved only United States agencies. It explained that federal law limits where such cases may be filed. The complaint indicated that the events and any relevant property were in or around Reno, Nevada, while the court concluded that venue based on the agencies’ residence would be in the District of Columbia.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted Fulkerson’s motion to submit an amended complaint. The court also ordered him to explain in writing by June 26, 2020, why the case should not be dismissed for improper venue, without prejudice to refiling in the District of Nevada or the District of Columbia.
The detailed version
- Fulkerson v. U.S. Department of Justice · No. 3:20-cv-00481
- Maxine Chesney
- June 16, 2020
Background
The court had previously extended the deadline to serve the defendants to June 10, 2020, and the deadline to file proof of service to June 17, 2020. Fulkerson filed proof of service on June 15, stating that the defendants had been served on June 10. He had filed a motion on June 8 seeking permission to submit an amended complaint.
Amended Complaint
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving it. Based on that rule, the court granted Fulkerson’s motion to submit an amended complaint.
Venue
The court observed that the action was brought solely against United States agencies. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), venue in such an action may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, or, if no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides.
The court stated that federal agencies reside in Washington, D.C., for purposes of § 1391(e)(1), so venue based on the defendants’ residence would be proper in the District of Columbia. The court also found that Fulkerson’s initial complaint said the events or omissions occurred in and around Reno, Nevada, and that the amended complaint appeared to describe events occurring in Nevada. The only property identified in either complaint was Fulkerson’s residence, which the pleadings identified as being in Reno, Nevada. The court therefore concluded that venue under § 1391(e)(2) and § 1391(e)(3) appeared proper in the District of Nevada, not the Northern District of California.
Order
The court ordered Fulkerson to show cause—that is, to explain in writing—by June 26, 2020, why the action should not be dismissed for improper venue. The order stated that any such dismissal would be without prejudice to refiling in the District of Nevada or the District of Columbia. The court did not dismiss the action in this order; it granted the motion to submit an amended complaint and issued the order to show cause.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.