James Nanney v. Mr. Larochelle

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: December 17, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-07290
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Mr. James Nanney, ID 0298657 ) C/A No.: 3:24-7290-MGL-SVH a/k/a James David Nanney a/k/a ) James D. Nanney, ) ) Plaintiff, ) REPORT AND ) RECOMMENDATION vs. ) ) Mr. Larochelle, ) ) Defendant. ) )

James Nanney (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint against Mr. LaRochelle (“Defendant”), who he identifies as “Director” and an employee of the IRS. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge transfer this case to the Eastern District of North Carolina. I. Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff alleges “Defendant refuse to pay Plaintiff tax-refund of $26,350.00 from a tax form 1040 I.R.S. form.” [ECF No. 1 at 6]. He also alleges “Defendant sent a letter to Plaintiff on 10-31-2024 as fraud asking for more time.” . Plaintiff is incarcerated in Nashville, North Carolina. II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review Plaintiff filed his complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss

a case upon a finding that the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. , 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim

based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Pro se

complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. ., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction

afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

The requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. ., 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990). Although the court must liberally

construe a pro se complaint, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear a plaintiff must do more than make conclusory statements to state a claim. , 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009); , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, the complaint must contain

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint’s factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. , 556 U.S. at 678‒79. B. Analysis

Federal district courts are vested with the inherent power to control and protect the administration of court proceedings. , 783 F.2d 1175, 1177 (4th Cir. 1986). A court has the power to consider sua sponte whether venue is proper , 115 F. App’x 634,

635–36 (4th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b): (b) Venue in general.—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.

In absence of venue, a court has authority sua sponte to transfer under either 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or § 1406(a), or both. , 115 F. App’x at 635–36; ., 305 F.3d 253, 255–56 (4th Cir. 2002). “The 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Here, Plaintiff has not provided any facts showing Defendant resides in South Carolina or that a substantial part of the alleged acts or omissions occurred in South Carolina. Further, it does not appear this court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this case. Therefore, the undersigned recommends the district judge transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. III. Conclusion and Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for further disposition. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger December 17, 2024 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”