Fulkerson v. U.S. Department of Justice

Background

Heath Vincent Fulkerson brought this action against United States agencies in the Northern District of California. On June 16, 2020, the court granted his motion to submit an amended complaint and ordered him to explain in writing why the action should not be dismissed for improper venue. Fulkerson then filed a request to submit another amended complaint, a proposed second amended complaint, and a filing describing the alleged wrongdoing by each defendant. The court treated those filings as his response to the order to show cause.

Venue Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), an action against United States agencies may be brought in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, where relevant property is located, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides. The court had previously found that venue was proper either in the District of Columbia, where federal agencies reside for this purpose, or in Nevada, where the events and identified property were located.

The court rejected Fulkerson’s explanation that he selected Northern California to keep alleged government corruption away from the court handling the matter. It also considered his allegations that people followed and intimidated him, that documents were stolen from his home, vehicle, and the U.S. Post Office, and that he experienced communication fraud involving the district court. Even assuming those allegations were true, the court found that they did not establish venue in Northern California.

The court further found that the proposed second amended complaint named the same federal agencies and did not allege that any relevant event occurred or property was located in Northern California. Instead, it sought relief based on events in Nevada and referred to a residence and business located in Reno, Nevada. Fulkerson’s filing describing the alleged wrongdoing also did not identify an event occurring in Northern California.

Disposition

The court held that the Northern District of California was not a proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a court may dismiss a case filed in an improper venue or, if justice requires, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Judge Maxine M. Chesney chose dismissal rather than transfer and ordered that the action be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in the federal court for the District of Nevada or the District of Columbia. The order addressed venue and did not decide the underlying allegations against the defendants.