Faison v. Davis
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-02792
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Faison v. Davis, Judge Tigar dismissed the action for improper venue, allowing refiling in the appropriate district.
Matthew Levi Faison’s case was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the named defendants. The court did not decide the merits of Faison’s constitutional or statutory allegations.
What happened
In Faison v. Davis, Matthew Levi Faison, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, filed a civil-rights case under federal law against several defendants. He alleged constitutional and statutory violations but did not explain how his rights were violated.
The court dismissed the action because venue was not proper in the Northern District of California. The complaint did not allege that any defendant lived there or that events related to the claims occurred there. Because the proper venue was unclear, the court dismissed rather than transferred the case, and said Faison may re-file it in the appropriate venue.
The court entered judgment for the defendants and closed the case. Judge Jon S. Tigar did not decide whether Faison’s underlying claims were legally valid.
The detailed version
- Faison v. Davis · No. 4:20-cv-02792
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
Matthew Levi Faison, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He was incarcerated at Calhoun Correctional Institution in Blountstown, Florida. The court stated that Faison had been granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in a separate order.
Faison named Clive Davis, a Jane Doe records clerk for the Los Angeles Recording School, a John Doe deputy clerk and secretary for that school, Joyce Street Sims, and Valorie Simpson as defendants. He alleged that he was in imminent danger of serious physical injury under the Seventh Amendment, that the defendants violated 17 U.S.C. § 101, and that the action was supported by several constitutional amendments and Federal Rule of Evidence 401. The court noted that Faison did not explain how the defendants violated his constitutional or statutory rights.
Court’s analysis
Because Faison was incarcerated and sought relief from governmental entities or their personnel, the court conducted the required preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also described the requirement that a § 1983 claim allege both a violation of a federal right and action under state law.
The court did not reach the merits of Faison’s claims. It focused on venue, which is the proper geographic location for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may generally be filed where a defendant resides, if the statutory conditions are met, or where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred. The court found that no defendant was alleged to reside in the Northern District of California and that none of the events or omissions underlying the complaint was alleged to have occurred there. Venue therefore was not proper in that district.
The court stated that it was unclear where venue belonged, so it would dismiss the case rather than transfer it.
Disposition
The action was dismissed for lack of venue. The court stated that Faison may re-file in the appropriate venue. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and against Faison and to close the case. The opinion does not label the dismissal as either with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.