Nicholas Leon Rusk v. Tazewell County Sheriff, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 NICHOLAS LEON RUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01634-JHC-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND TAZEWELL COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 9 Noted for December 2, 2025 Defendants. 10

11 This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action has been referred to United States Magistrate 12 Judge Theresa L. Fricke. Plaintiff Nicholas Leon Rusk has filed a motion to proceed in 13 forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a proposed civil rights complaint. Dkts. 9, 9-1. Plaintiff is pro 14 se, and he currently resides at Lake Behavioral Health in Waukegan, Illinois. Dkt. 9-1. 15 Plaintiff asserts various claims against defendants who are officers of the Tazewell 16 County Jail in Tazewell County, Illinois as well as President Donald Trump and the 17 Central Intelligence Agency, located in Washington D.C. and/or, according to plaintiff’s 18 complaint, Phoenix, Maryland. Id. Plaintiff’s claims relate to actions allegedly taken by 19 the defendants in Tazewell County, Illinois and Washington D.C. and/or Phoenix, 20 Maryland. Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 128(a). 21 The Court should hold that venue is not proper in the Western District of 22 Washington and that the case should be transferred to the Central District of Illinois in 23 24 1 the interest of justice. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends this 2 case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. 4 Plaintiff challenges the conduct of jail officials at Tazewell County Jail as well as

5 President Trump and the CIA related to alleged interference with his mail in or around 6 June of 2025 while he was detained at Tazewell County Jail. Dkt. 9-1, proposed 7 complaint. He alleges he was not allowed any legal mail and alleges defendants have 8 stolen from his prison trust account. Id. He also alleges he is being held on false 9 charges. Id. All individuals and entities named as defendants allegedly reside or operate 10 within Tazewell County, Illinois or Washington D.C. and/or Phoenix, Maryland. Id. 11 The filing fee has not been paid, IFP status has not been decided, service of 12 process has not been directed, and no defendant has appeared in this action. 14 Venue may be raised by the Court sua sponte where defendants have not filed

15 responsive pleadings and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 16 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Venue is proper in (1) the judicial district in which any 17 defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the judicial 18 district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 19 occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; 20 or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in 21 which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is 22 improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in 23 the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

24 1 Here, plaintiff’s allegations arise from events occurring primarily, if not entirely, in 2 Tazewell County, Illinois. Dkt. 9-1. Tazewell County, Illinois lies within the Central 3 District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. § 128(a). Plaintiff has not named any defendants alleged to 4 reside or operate in the Western District of Washington; rather, all defendants are

5 alleged to reside or operate in the Central District of Illinois or Washington D.C. and/or 6 Phoenix, Maryland. Dkt. 3-2 at 2–3. Plaintiff resided at the Tazewell County Jail in 7 Pekin, Illinois at the time he filed the proposed complaint; currently he resides at Lake 8 Behavioral Health in Waukegan, Illinois. Dkts. 4. Therefore, the Court concludes the 9 Western District of Washington is an improper venue for this suit. 10 Because venue is improper in this District, the Court has discretion to either 11 dismiss the action or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The 12 Court finds the proposed complaint may contain deficiencies, such as insufficient factual 13 detail demonstrating liability of each defendant named. Nonetheless, the Court finds 14 that dismissing this action and directing plaintiff to refile in the Central District of Illinois

15 would cause unnecessary delay. 16 Accordingly, the Court should hold that transferring, rather than dismissing, this case 17 is appropriate. 19 The Court should find venue in this District is improper. In the interest of justice, 20 the Court should transfer this case to the proper venue. The Court recommends 21 transferring the proposed complaint (Dkt. 9-1) and deferring the decision on plaintiff’s 22 IFP motion (Dkt. 9) and the screening of his proposed complaint (Dkt. 9-1) to the 23 Central District of Illinois.

24 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 2 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 4 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can

5 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 6 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 7 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 8 directed to set the matter for consideration on December 2, 2025, as noted in the 9 caption. 10 11 Dated this 17th day of November, 2025. 12 13 14 A 15 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24