United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
W. CHRISTEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
District Court has referred this action filed under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 to United States Magistrate Judge David W.
Christel. Plaintiff Kermit Ty Poulson, proceeding pro
se, initiated this lawsuit on November 26, 2019.
See Dkts. 1, 3. The Court has reviewed
Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint and finds the proper venue
for this case is the District of Oregon. Therefore, the Court
orders this case be transferred to the District of Oregon.
who is housed at the Federal Correctional Institution
(“FCI Sheridan”) in Sheridan Oregon, brings
allegations related to the conditions of his confinement at
FCI Sheridan including the lack of proper medical treatment
and the lack of a wheelchair and handicapped cell.
Id. Several of Plaintiff's allegations also stem
from the constitutionality of his physical confinement,
including claims related to lack of a speedy trial and lack
of an arraignment. Dkt. 1-1. Plaintiff alleges he is being
held at FCI Sheridan on an unrelated charge and was informed
that a separate criminal charge from Port Orchard, Washington
will affect his upcoming parole. Id. at 1-2.
seeks relief related to both his conditions of confinement -
injunctive relief and monetary damages and his physical
confinement - dismissal of any pending charges against him in
federal court. Id. at 10-11.
Court has not granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) status, nor has the Court ordered the
Clerk's Office to attempt service of process. No
defendant has appeared in this action.
may be raised by the court sua sponte where the
defendant has not filed a responsive pleading and the time
for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790
F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). When jurisdiction is not
based solely on diversity, venue is proper in (1) the
district in which any defendant resides, if all of the
defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in
which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the
property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found,
if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be
brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is
improper, the district court has the discretion to either
dismiss the case or transfer it “in the interest of
justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
it is clear from Plaintiff's Proposed Complaint his
§ 1983 claims arise out of actions committed at FCI
Sheridan. Dkt. 1-1. FCI Sheridan is located in Sheridan,
Oregon, which is in the District of Oregon. See 28
U.S.C. § 128(a). Further, Plaintiff has named the United
States of America as the sole Defendant and has not named any
individual Defendants who are located in the Western District
of Washington. Therefore, the Court concludes venue is
improper for Plaintiff's § 1983 claims raised in the
venue is improper, the Court has the discretion to dismiss or
transfer the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner. See Dkt.
1-1. At this time, the Court does not find the Proposed
Complaint is meritless. Further, dismissing the case and
directing Plaintiff to refile in the District of Oregon would
cause unnecessary delay. Therefore, the Court finds
transferring, rather than dismissing, this case is
Court finds venue is improper and the interests of justice
require this case be transferred to the proper venue.
Accordingly, the Court orders this case be transferred to the
District of Oregon and the case be closed.
light of the transfer, the Court defers to the District of
Oregon with respect to Plaintiff's ...