Siruk v. Mazur
- John Tunheim
- 0:21-cv-00054
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
Judge Tunheim dismissed Siruk v. Mazur without prejudice for improper venue and insufficient allegations, and denied Siruk’s fee-waiver application as moot.
Petro Siruk’s case was dismissed without prejudice; Stan Mazur, Joe Mazur, and La Strada at Lake Lure were no longer required to defend this action in the District of Minnesota.
What happened
In Siruk v. Mazur, Petro Siruk sued Stan Mazur, Joe Mazur, and La Strada at Lake Lure over his dissatisfaction with service at the restaurant. Siruk represented himself and asked to proceed without paying court fees.
The court agreed that Minnesota was not the proper venue because the defendants did not reside there and the events occurred in North Carolina. It also found that Siruk’s complaint did not provide enough specific facts about the defendants’ conduct or the harm he experienced. Siruk had not filed an amended complaint after the court allowed him to amend.
Judge Tunheim overruled Siruk’s objection, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, denied the fee-waiver application as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Siruk v. Mazur · No. 0:21-cv-00054
- John Tunheim
- Apr. 29, 2021
Background
Petro Siruk filed the action on January 5, 2021, concerning his dissatisfaction with service at La Strada at Lake Lure, a restaurant in North Carolina. The defendants were Stan Mazur, Joe Mazur, and La Strada at Lake Lure. Siruk proceeded without a lawyer and applied to proceed without prepaying fees and costs.
Siruk later filed a motion containing additional factual allegations and a notice with attachments. The magistrate judge treated those filings as a motion to amend the complaint and granted the motion for that purpose. Siruk did not file an amended complaint.
Recommendation and objections
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action without prejudice for improper venue and failure to state a claim. The recommendation also advised denying Siruk’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs as moot. Siruk objected, but his objections did not address the recommended grounds for dismissal.
Court’s analysis
Because Siruk sought to proceed without prepaying fees and costs, the court was required to dismiss the action if the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. A complaint must include enough factual allegations to allow a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. The court explained that complaints filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but they still must allege sufficient facts to support a claim.
The court agreed that Minnesota was not the proper venue. The defendants did not reside in Minnesota, the events giving rise to the claims did not occur there, and Siruk could bring an action in state or federal court in North Carolina, where the alleged harm occurred. The court also agreed that the complaint lacked specific factual allegations about the defendants’ conduct and the harm Siruk experienced. The court concluded that this deficiency did not warrant transferring the case to another venue.
Disposition
The court overruled Siruk’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. It denied Siruk’s application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs as moot and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court did not decide whether Siruk could state a plausible claim in a future amended complaint; it noted that deciding whether to file a new complaint in the appropriate district was left to Siruk.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.