Manonda Grace Lattimore v. United States of America, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: April 3, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-00952
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Manonda Grace Lattimore, No. CV-26-00952-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 United States of America, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on its own review of the record and of Plaintiff 16 Manonda Lattimore’s amended complaint (Doc. 18). The defendants have not yet appeared 17 or responded to the amended complaint. The Court finds that venue is not proper in this 18 District and transfers this action to the District of Nevada. 19 I. 20 Plaintiff is a resident of Nevada. (Doc. 18 at 2; see also Doc. 18-1 at 1.) She names 21 the Office of Administrative Law Judges for the United States Department of Labor, the 22 United States Attorney General, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the 23 Secretary of Labor, and the Department of Labor as defendants. (Doc. 18 at 3-4.) Lattimore 24 challenges two administrative agency adjudications on grounds that they were “undertaken 25 without lawful adjudicative authority . . . , resulting in ongoing constitutional injury.” (See 26 id. at 7.) She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a vacatur of “all orders, 27 decisions, and administrative records arising from [the administrative] proceedings.” (Id. 28 at 8.) 1 II. 2 The Court may raise the issue of venue when the defendants have not yet filed a 3 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not yet run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 4 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). “[M]ost courts hold that the plaintiff bears the burden of 5 establishing proper venue.” Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Comput. Corp., 89 F. Supp. 2d 6 1154, 1161 (C.D. Cal. 2000). 7 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)—which applies in actions like this one where a defendant is 8 the United States or one of its agencies or officers or employees “acting in his official 9 capacity or under color of legal authority”—states, in relevant part, that a civil action may 10 be brought in “any judicial district in which” (1) “a defendant in the action resides,” (2) “a 11 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred,” or (3) “the 12 plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.” Plaintiff’s amended complaint 13 does not indicate that the District of Arizona is the correct venue under any of these 14 statutory options. 15 Plaintiff resides in Nevada. (Doc. 18 at 2; Doc. 18-1 at 1.) The defendants consist 16 of United States agencies and officers, (Doc. 18 at 3-4), and such defendants are typically 17 deemed to reside in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Chorostecki v. Blinken, 742 F. Supp. 3d 18 1078, 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2024) (“Courts generally agree that federal defendants reside in 19 Washington, D.C. for venue purposes . . . .”); Archuleta v. Sullivan, 725 F. Supp. 602, 605 20 (D.D.C. 1989) (stating that for “an officer or employee of the United States, or any agency 21 thereof, acting in his official capacity, . . . the place where the defendant resides is not the 22 defendant’s personal residence but his official residence, i.e., where his official duties are 23 performed”); see also Garcia v. Acosta, 393 F. Supp. 3d 93, 108 (D.D.C. 2019) (finding 24 that the Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor reside in the District of Columbia); 25 Downey v. United States, Civ. No. 19-00406 LEK-WRP, 2019 WL 4143288, at *3 (D. 26 Haw. Aug. 30, 2019) (“[T]he Department of Justice, as well as the Attorney 27 General . . . whom Plaintiff is suing in [his] official capacit[y], are residents of Washington 28 D.C. for purposes of the venue analysis.”). Indeed, Plaintiff provides Washington, D.C. 1 addresses for all defendants. (See Doc. 18 at 3-4.) 2 Further, nothing in the amended complaint indicates that a “substantial part of the 3 events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” in the District of Arizona, 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1391(e)(1), or that any pertinent event or omission occurred in this District (see generally 5 Doc. 18). In fact, Plaintiff indicated on her civil cover sheet that her claim for relief arose 6 outside of Arizona. (Doc. 18-1 at 1.) Venue is therefore proper in at least the District of 7 Nevada and the District for the District of Columbia, considering the above. But, at bottom, 8 the District of Arizona is not implicated. 9 III. 10 When venue has been laid in the wrong district, the Court must “dismiss, or if it be 11 in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have 12 been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Whether to dismiss or transfer the case is within the 13 Court’s discretion. See King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301, 1304 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 As indicated above, this action could have been brought in the District of Nevada 15 or the District for the District of Columbia. The Court finds a transfer to the District of 16 Nevada, where Plaintiff resides, is in the interest of justice. 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must transfer this action to the United 19 States District Court for the District of Nevada pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk 20 of Court must close this case. 21 . . . . 22 . . . . 23 . . . . 24 . . . . 25 . . . . 26 . . . . 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Void Administrative 2|| Adjudicative Actions for Lack of Authority (Doc. 3) and the Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Bar Reliance on Challenged Adjudicative Record Pending Final 4|| Determination (Doc. 23) are left to the discretion of the transferee court for resolution. 5 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026. 6

8 Michael T, Liburdi 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-