King v. Supreme Court of Florida

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 13, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00579
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 NIKIE KING, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00579-TL 12 Plaintiff(s), ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA et al, 14 Defendant(s). 15

17 This matter is before the Court on the Court’s own motion, following the Court’s prior 18 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 6). Having considered the relevant record, including Plaintiff 19 Nikie King’s two filings after the Order to Show Cause was issued, the Court hereby DISMISSES 20 the case without prejudice. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Ms. King brings suit seeking various forms of relief against the Supreme Court of 23 Florida, the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and other governmental entities located in Florida 24 1 for claims arising out of various proceedings not before this District or State. See Dkt. No. 5 2 (complaint). 3 On May 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be 4 dismissed for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and § 1406(a). Dkt. No. 6 at 1–2. The

5 Order to Show Cause noted that the Complaint (and its exhibits) contains no references to the 6 State of Washington nor any other indication that venue might be proper in this District. Id. at 2. 7 The Court set a deadline of June 20 for Ms. King to respond. Id. at 3. 8 Ms. King then made two submissions: a May 31 filing, which contains a modified page 9 of her Complaint and a page from an in forma pauperis application with the District of South 10 Carolina (Dkt. No. 7); and a June 6 filing, which contains pages from Probate Court filings in 11 South Carolina (Dkt. No. 8). It is unclear whether these two filings were responses to the Order 12 to Show Cause, as the copy of the Order to Show Cause mailed to Ms. King was returned as 13 undeliverable to the Clerk of the Court on June 7. Dkt. No. 9. The Order to Show Cause was 14 mailed again to an alternate address on June 8, which was not returned as undeliverable. Id.

15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Civil actions in federal court may be brought, with exceptions that are not relevant here, 17 only in the judicial district where defendants reside or in a district where a substantial part of the 18 events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a case is filed in the wrong 19 district, the district court must “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to 20 any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The decision 21 to transfer or dismiss is within the discretion of the district court. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 22 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing [rather 23 than transferring under 28 U.S.C. § 1406] . . . .”).

24 1 First, the Western District of Washington is an improper venue for this case. The Court 2 has found no connection to this District here, other than references to “Washington” that may 3 have resulted from a confusion of the State of Washington and the city Washington, D.C., see 4 Dkt. No. 5 at 4 (“The defendant, Supreme Court of FL, is incorporated under the laws of the

5 State of Washington DC/NA . . . .”), or seem to be references to other cases Ms. King has filed in 6 this District, all of which have been dismissed for various reasons, see Dkt. No. 5-1 at 2 (noting 7 other judges of this District under related cases); see also Dkt. No. 6 at 2 (listing all the cases). 8 There is no sign that any Defendant resides in this State, much less this District, nor that any 9 relevant conduct occurred in this State or District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 10 Ms. King’s May 31 and June 6 filings do not change this determination. First, as noted 11 above, it is not clear that the May 31 and June 6 filings were even intended to be responsive to 12 the Order to Show Cause. In any case, the two filings appear to point to a separate case that 13 Ms. King has filed in the District of South Carolina, King v. State of Florida Supreme Court et 14 al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00310-DCN-MGB, namely by providing the case number for the case and

15 the first page of an application for in forma pauperis status before the District of South Carolina 16 (Dkt. No. 7), as well as providing a partial copy of filings with a Probate Court in South Carolina 17 (Dkt. No. 8). Neither filing explains the relevance of this District to this case. 18 Second, having determined that venue is improper, the Court also finds that transferring 19 this case to another district where venue may be proper is not in the interests of justice. Ms. King 20 appears to reside in, and at least one Defendant appears to be located in, the District of South 21 Carolina, where venue appears to be proper—at least, based on the scant information contained 22 in the record. See Dkt. No. 5 at 2; Dkt. No. 7 at 1. Venue may also be proper in one or more 23 districts of Florida, as most of the Defendants appear to be located in Florida (Dkt. No. 5 at 2, 4),

24 and other references to Florida exist in the record (id. at 5; Dkt. No. 5-1 at 4). 1 Even so, while a complaint drafted by pro se litigants “‘must be held to less stringent 2 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,’” Florer v. Congregation Pidyon Shevuyim, 3 N.A., 639 F.3d 916, 923 & n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 4 (2007) (per curiam)), the Complaint here has virtually no factual allegations, much less any that

5 plausibly shows that Ms. King may have a right to relief under a cognizable cause of action. See, 6 e.g., Dkt. No. 5, at 3, 5; see also Abou-Ramadan v. Kataoka, 2021 WL 2856472, at *1 (W.D. 7 Wash. July 8, 2021) (dismissing on similar grounds); Espinosa v. De La Cruz, 2020 WL 8 7264873, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2020) (“It would not be in the interest of justice to transfer 9 this action as Plaintiff has not adequately alleged in his complaint any cognizable claim for 10 relief . . . .”), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 7260537 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 11 2020). Further, Plaintiff has been declared a vexatious litigant in the Southern District of Florida, 12 see King v. Circuit/Cnty. Court, No. 9:20-80750-CIV-DIMITROULEAS (S.D. Fla. June 2, 13 2020), ECF No. 7, and may not pursue litigation in that venue absent extenuating circumstances 14 that do not appear to exist here. It is therefore unlikely, even under a liberal construction of the

15 Complaint as it is currently pled, that Ms. King could pursue this case in the District of South 16 Carolina or elsewhere. In short, Ms. King has failed to show that venue is proper in this District 17 nor that transfer to a different venue would be in the interests of justice. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), without prejudice to 20 re-filing in a proper venue. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. 21 Dated this 13th day of July 2022. 22 A 23 Tana Lin United States District Judge 24