Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grant v. U.S. Department of Defense

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

January 9, 2020

WILLIAM LEE GRANT II, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has filed what appears to be a regurgitation of his two prior lawsuits in this court, which were both dismissed without prejudice for improper venue.[1] The court now conducts an initial review of the Complaint to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff, who lives in Springfield, Illinois, sues the United States Department of Defense for $99 trillion in damages, alleging that the Secretary of Defense and Gregory K. Harris undermined Plaintiff's “legal defenses, colluded to have [Plaintiff] arrested for driving under the influence, and directed the state of Illinois to retaliate against” him. (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 4 (capitalization corrected).) Plaintiff alleges that he has “had the enamel drilled off of his teeth, ” “had his vision diminished, ” has been sexually assaulted, and “has been forced to endure nearly thirty (30) years of psychological warfare.” (Filing 1 at CM/ECF p. 23 (capitalization corrected).)

         Attached to Plaintiff's form non-prisoner Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights are what appear to be complaints filed in several other venues that are heavily redacted to conceal the court names and are annotated with additional allegations, most of which are non-sensical.[2] Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claim occurred in Ohio, Virginia, and Chicago. There is no reference to an act or omission that forms the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint as having occurred in Nebraska.

         II. STANDARD ON INITIAL REVIEW

         The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). 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, [3] or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         III. DISCUSSION

         It is clear from the face of Plaintiff's Complaint that the District of Nebraska is not a proper venue. “Any civil action on a tort claim against the United States . . . may be prosecuted only in the judicial district where the plaintiff resides or wherein the act or omission complained of occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b). Plaintiff resides in Springfield, Illinois, and no act or omission forming the basis for the Complaint is alleged to have occurred in Nebraska.

         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).[4] Here, as in Plaintiffs prior two cases filed in this court, I will dismiss this case rather than unnecessarily burden the Central District of Illinois with another frivolous lawsuit filed by Plaintiff.

         IV. CONCLUSION

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), Plaintiff's Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for improper venue.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.