McCray v. Kelly

Background

Jamilah-Monique McCray, representing herself, filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint used a form for a diversity case seeking money, but it did not complete most sections of the form. McCray alleged that Richard Kelly owed her $75,000 plus legal fees for an alleged breach of a “self-executing contract.” The filings and attached exhibits also referred to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, an alleged debt, an arrest, searches of her vehicle and purse for drugs, detention, bail, missing property, and emotional distress.

The court said the basis for the lawsuit was unclear. It liberally construed the filings as challenging the arrest, searches, detention, and related injuries, while also treating the claimed debt as something McCray sought to enforce against Kelly.

Venue and personal jurisdiction

The court issued an order to show cause—an order requiring a party to explain why a proposed action should not be taken—because the case did not appear to be properly filed in the Northern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may lie where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

The complaint did not identify events occurring in the Northern District of California or allege that Kelly or the other individuals mentioned in the filings lived there. The court inferred that the relevant events occurred in Indiana because Kelly was identified as a police officer with the Greenwood, Indiana Police Department and the other referenced individuals were also located in Indiana. It determined that the Southern District of Indiana was the proper venue because Greenwood is in Johnson County, which falls within that district. The court also questioned whether Kelly had sufficient contacts with California for the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over him.

Ruling

The court did not transfer or dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered McCray to file, by September 14, 2022, a statement explaining why venue was proper in the Northern District of California and why the court should not recommend transfer to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The opinion states that an improperly venued case must be dismissed or transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), but the court had not yet selected either action. Judge Donna M. Ryu signed the order.