Crane v. City of Dunsmuir

Background

Jodi L. Crane brought a civil-rights action against the City of Dunsmuir, City Manager Todd Juhasz, Fire Chief Daniel Padilla, and Mayor Jiliana Lucchessi. The amended complaint appears to allege that the defendants violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by taking her property without due process. It also appears to allege that the defendants conspired to deny her due-process rights after a building inspector falsified a report declaring her business a “danger.” Crane alleged that the business was forced to close and that she lost her ability to earn a living and her means of support.

The court had previously granted Crane permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The screening order stated that the complaint failed to state a claim, appeared to be filed in the wrong venue, and could not assert claims on behalf of her business without a lawyer. Crane then filed an amended complaint, which omitted any claim on behalf of her business, JUSTINTIME.

Venue analysis

For federal-question cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) generally permits venue where any defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, if neither of those options is available, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that the amended complaint did not establish venue in the Northern District of California. It stated that all defendants resided in Dunsmuir, California, that none of the events supporting Crane’s Section 1983 claim occurred in the Northern District, and that the Eastern District of California was a district where the claims could have been brought.

The court rejected Crane’s statement that “fairness” favored proceeding in the Northern District because defense counsel worked in a courthouse in the plaintiff’s county. The court stated that defense counsel was a private attorney not affiliated with the Eastern District of California and that this circumstance did not establish venue under Section 1391(b).

Disposition

In the interest of justice and under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court TRANSFERRED the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk was directed to transfer the matter forthwith. The order did not resolve whether the alleged constitutional violations occurred or whether the amended complaint stated a valid civil-rights claim.