United States District Court, D. Maine
WILLIE R. GRIFFIN, Plaintiff,
MISS STEPHNEY, et al. Defendants
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1915
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge.
action, Plaintiff Willie R. Griffin, with a general delivery
return address in Richmond, Virginia, seeks relief from
“Miss Stephney, ” Catholic Charities, the
Richmond Police Department, and the State of Virginia.
(Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4), which motion the Court granted. (ECF
No. 7.) Because Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter in
forma pauperis, his action is subject to review under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to ensure that Plaintiff has
stated a claim for which relief may be granted in this
Court. After the review, I recommend the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint.
deciding whether to dismiss a claim or action for failure to
state a claim, a court must accept as true the factual
allegations of the complaint, draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of the plaintiff that are supported by the factual
allegations, and determine whether the complaint, so read,
sets forth a plausible basis for recovery. Trans-Spec
Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315, 320
(1st Cir. 2008). To allege an action in federal court,
however, it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege
that a defendant acted unlawfully; a plaintiff must
affirmatively allege facts that identify the manner by which
the defendant subjected the plaintiff to a harm for which the
law affords a remedy. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.
1937, 1949 (2009).
Plaintiff’s complaint is somewhat difficult to
decipher, Plaintiff appears to allege that Defendants failed
to provide shelter to him, and otherwise mistreated him.
Plaintiff and Defendants are alleged to be residents of
Virginia, and the alleged incidents occurred in Virginia.
Regardless of the substance of Plaintiff’s claim,
Plaintiff cannot prosecute his claim in this Court. Assuming
Plaintiff has asserted this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983,  the appropriate venue is determined by
reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which states:
action may be brought in-
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if
all defendants are residents of the State in which the
district is located;
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of property that is the subject of the
action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise
be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district
in which any defendant is subject to the court’s
personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.
none of the parties is a resident of Maine, because the
incidents about which Plaintiff complains did not occur in
Maine, and because the record lacks any evidence to suggest
Plaintiff is unable to assert this action in a district in
Virginia, Plaintiff cannot prosecute his claim in this
to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a
district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the
interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.”
“Whether dismissal or transfer is appropriate lies
within the sound discretion of the district court.”
Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1026 (2d
Cir. 1993); see also Quinn v. Watson, 145 Fed.
App’x 799, 800 (4th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished). Because Plaintiff does not appear to state
a federal claim,  judicial economy militates in favor of
on the foregoing analysis, after a review of
Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915, I recommend the ...