Margaret Brooks v. Hon. Regina Scannichio, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARGARET BROOKS, No. 2:25-cv-3280 TLN AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 HON. REGINA SCANNICHIO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 18 November 12, 2025. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local 19 Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The allegations suggest that venue is improper in this 20 District, and that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants. For the following reasons, 21 the court orders plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to 22 improper venue and/or due to the absence of personal jurisdiction. 23 Plaintiff lists her town of residence as Monterey, California. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff 24 names as defendants multiple individuals located in Wisconsin or Illinois, including a judge for 25 the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, and one defendant whose location is unknown. Id. at 26 2. Plaintiff also alleges that these defendants laundered money through multiple unnamed 27 individuals in Texas and Northern California. Id. 28 On June 13, 2011, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois entered a Judgment of 1 Dissolution of Marriage between plaintiff and her ex-husband, defendant William Duffy. Id. at 9- 2 11. The Marital Settlement Agreement executed that day required Duffy to pay half of his gross 3 income as unallocated family support until one of three events occurred. Id. at 22, 24. The 4 complaint alleges that this “maintenance” should have amounted to $100,000 annually, and that 5 to date none of the events that would terminate this obligation have occurred. Id. at 4, 8. Aside 6 from not paying this amount, the complaint accuses Duffy of breaking laws repeatedly “while 7 obstructing justice, laundering money and abusing and violating” the rights of both plaintiff and 8 her children. Id. at 4. Plaintiff also accuses Duffy, members of his family and her own, and 9 unspecified “frenemys” of trying to kill her with food and airborne assaults over several years. 10 Id. at 6. 11 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 12 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 13 district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 14 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 15 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 16 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 17 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 18 Personal jurisdiction, in turn, requires that a nonresident defendant “have at least 19 ‘minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend 20 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 21 Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Personal jurisdiction can be 22 general or specific. For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant, the defendant 23 must engage in continuous and systematic general business contacts that “approximate physical 24 presence” in the forum state. Id. Alternatively, for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a 25 defendant’s specific conduct:

26 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; 27 or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the 28 benefits and protections of its laws; ] (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum related activities; and 2 (3) The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and 3 substantial justice, 1.e. it must be reasonable.

4 | Id. at 802. 5 Although the complaint asserts collusion with unknown entities in California, none of the 6 || named defendants are California residents. ECF No 1 at 2. The complaint also fails to allege that 7 || any of the events underlying the claim transpired in this district. The complaint’s nonconclusory g || allegations concern the violation of a divorce settlement agreement that was executed in Illinois, 9 || with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce it. Id. at 4, 8-42. Venue accordingly appears to be 10 || lacking in the Eastern District of California. Moreover, the absence of alleged defendant conduct 11 || 1m California — aside from conclusory allegations of attempted murder — seemingly leaves this 12 || court without general or specific personal jurisdiction. 13 Tn accordance with the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, 14 || within 21 days of this order, as to why this action should not be dismissed due to improper venue 15 || and/or the absence of personal jurisdiction. 16 | DATED: January 7, 2026 ~ 7 Athuwn—Chore ALLISON CLAIRE 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28