Beauford v. McDonough
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-02619
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Beauford v. McDonough, Judge Ryu ordered Beauford to explain why California is proper venue before possible dismissal or transfer.
Keith W. Beauford, who must explain why venue is proper in the Northern District of California; Denis R. McDonough is the defendant.
What happened
In Beauford v. McDonough, self-represented plaintiff Keith W. Beauford sued Denis R. McDonough under Title VII, alleging employment discrimination during Veterans Affairs training. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.
The court said Title VII’s special venue rules may make the District of Montana the proper venue, with the Districts of Colorado and Nevada also potentially appropriate. It ordered Beauford to explain in writing by October 23, 2023, why the Northern District of California is proper.
The order did not decide whether the case should be transferred or dismissed. If Beauford did not respond or failed to establish proper venue, the court said it would prepare a recommendation that a district judge dismiss the case or transfer it; the order was signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
The detailed version
- Beauford v. McDonough · No. 3:23-cv-02619
- Edward Chen
- Sept. 25, 2023
Background
Self-represented plaintiff Keith W. Beauford filed a complaint and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. He asserted an employment-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Denis R. McDonough, identified as the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Beauford alleged that discrimination occurred while he was training for employment at the Veterans Service Center at Fort Harrison in Helena, Montana. He also alleged that some training and discrimination occurred online while he was working at home. The complaint suggested that the online training occurred in Colorado, stated that Beauford resided in Reno, Nevada, and did not establish that the relevant employment records were maintained in the Northern District of California or that he would have worked there absent the alleged discrimination.
Venue analysis
The court explained that Title VII has its own venue rules. Those rules generally permit a case in the district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are kept, where the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged discrimination, or, if those options do not apply, where the defendant maintains its principal office.
Based on the complaint, the court stated that the District of Montana appeared to be the proper venue. It also identified the Districts of Colorado and Nevada as potentially appropriate venues. The court concluded that the action appeared to be improperly venued in the Northern District of California.
Order and possible next steps
The court ordered Beauford to show cause in writing by October 23, 2023, explaining why venue was proper in the Northern District of California and why the court should not recommend dismissal without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate district. The order did not itself dismiss or transfer the case.
If Beauford failed to respond, or if his response did not establish proper venue, the court said it would prepare a report and recommendation asking a district judge to dismiss the case or transfer it to a different district. The order was issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.