United States District Court, S.D. Alabama
DAVID P. PETERSEN, Plaintiff,
ADAM W. OVERSTREET, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
who appears pro se, filed his Complaint on July 18, 2019.
(Filing 1) He has been given leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Filing 5) The court now conducts an initial review
of Plaintiff's Complaint to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 1915(e)(2).
SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
a Bivens action in which Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages from eleven federal prosecutors and FBI agents who
obtained a conviction against him for securities and wire
fraud in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama.
STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. The court
must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a
frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted,  or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 1406, if a plaintiff files a case in the
wrong venue, the district court “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A district court
has the discretion to either dismiss a plaintiff's claims
or transfer the case, sua sponte (on its own motion). See
Gaither v. Georgia, No. 4:19CV3029, 2019 WL 1789681, at
*1 (D. Neb. Apr. 24, 2019); Grant v. U.S. Dep't of
Def., No. 8:18CV247, 2018 WL 3383420, at *2 (D. Neb.
July 11, 2018); Bastian v. United States, No.
8:17CV309, 2018 WL 618419, at *3 (D. Neb. Jan. 29, 2018);
Jones v. Home, No. 8:16CV97, 2016 WL 3211817, at *2
(D. Neb. June 9, 2016).
for a Bivens action is governed by 28 U.S.C. §
1391, which provides that a civil 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.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint establish that the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska is
the wrong venue for this case. None of the defendants reside
in Nebraska. Ten of the defendants are Alabama residents, and
the eleventh defendant resides in Arkansas. Only Plaintiff
resides in Nebraska. Also, it does not appear that any ...