Watson v. Peck

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06007
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ERIC WATSON and SARAH WATSON, CASE NO. 3:24-CV-6007-BHS 11 Plaintiffs, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 v. Noting Date: January 23, 2025 13 ROY PECK and MICHAEL BOATMAN, 14 Defendants. 15 The District Court has referred Plaintiffs Eric Watson’s and Sarah Watson’s pending 16 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) and proposed complaint to United States 17 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel pursuant to Amended General Order 12-24. On December 18 10, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated this action and, on December 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed completed 19 applications to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without paying the filing fee for a civil 20 case. See Dkts. 1; 5, 6. 21 The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposed complaint and finds venue is not proper in 22 the Western District of Washington. Therefore, the Court recommends this case be transferred to 23 the District of Arizona. 24 1 I. Background 2 In the proposed complaint, Plaintiffs challenge actions related to an Arizona state court 3 matter and a contract dispute arising from a property dispute in Arizona. Dkt. 5-1. Plaintiffs cite 4 to violations of Arizona state law and they name Roy Peck and Michael Boatman as the

5 defendants, both who reside in Arizona. Id. IFP status has not been decided, the Court has not 6 ordered the Clerk’s Office to attempt service of process, and no defendant has appeared in this 7 action. 8 II. Discussion 9 Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not filed a 10 responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486, 11 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Venue is proper in (1) the district in which any defendant resides, if all of 12 the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or 13 omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject 14 of the action is situated; or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is

15 no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue 16 is improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in the 17 interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 18 Here, it is clear from Plaintiffs’ proposed complaint their claims arise out of actions 19 occurring in Bullhead City, Arizona and in an unidentified Arizona state court. Dkt. 5-1. All 20 defendants reside in Bullhead City, Arizona. Id. As Arizona constitutes one judicial district, 21 Bullhead City is located in the District of Arizona. See 28 U.S.C. § 82. Plaintiffs have not named 22 any defendants who are located in the Western District of Washington. Therefore, the Court 23 concludes venue in the Western District of Washington is improper.

24 1 Because venue is improper, the Court has the discretion to dismiss or transfer the case. 2 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Plaintiffs are pro se filers. See Dkts. 5, 6. The proposed complaint 3 appears to contain several potential deficiencies. See Dkt. 5-1. For example, claims in the 4 proposed complaint may be time-barred. However, the Court finds dismissing the case and

5 directing Plaintiffs to refile in the District of Arizona would cause unnecessary delay. Therefore, 6 the Court finds transferring, rather than dismissing, this case is appropriate. 7 III. Conclusion 8 The Court finds venue is improper. In the interest of justice, this case should be 9 transferred to the proper venue, not dismissed. Accordingly, the Court recommends this case be 10 transferred to the District of Arizona. The Court recommends deferring the decision to grant IFP 11 status and the screening of the proposed complaint to the District of Arizona. 12 Objections to this Report and Recommendation, if any, should be filed with the Clerk and 13 served upon all parties to this suit not later than fourteen (14) days from the date on which this 14 Report and Recommendation is signed. Failure to file objections within the specified time may

15 affect your right to appeal. Objections should be noted for consideration on the District Judge’s 16 motions calendar fourteen (14) days from the date they are filed. Responses to objections may 17 be filed by the day before the noting date. If no timely objections are filed, the matter will be 18 ready for consideration by the District Judge on January 23, 2025. 19 Dated this 8th day of January, 2025. 20 A 21 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24