Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Horswell v. State of Minnesota

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 29, 2019

PHILLIP HAROLD HORSWELL, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF MINNESOTA, Defendant.

          ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

          DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On July 1, 2019, Phillip Harold Horswell, proceeding pro se, filed a “Request for an immediate emergency Hearing” against the State of Minnesota. Dkt. No. 1. Horswell also filed a “Request for an Order for Transportation, ” Dkt. No. 4, a “Request for a change in venue, ” Dkt. No. 5, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 6, and a “Request for Boarding and Lodging, ” Dkt. No. 7.

         As is quickly evident from reviewing the foregoing documents, this case is brought by an individual located in the State of Minnesota, against the State of Minnesota, challenging a statute of the State of Minnesota. Nonetheless, the documents have been filed in the District of Hawai‘i. Because Horswell provides no adequate explanation for why this is so, venue is improper in Hawai‘i. Moreover, because it is apparent that this case was brought in Hawai‘i in bad faith, the Court declines to transfer venue and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

         DISCUSSION

         Because Horswell has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court screens the case pursuant to Section 1915 of Title 28, and must dismiss the same if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

         With respect to venue, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if no district is otherwise available, any district over which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. Id. § 1391(b). When a case is brought in the wrong district, a court must dismiss the case or, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer the case to a proper district. Id. § 1406(a). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained that “transfer will generally be in the interest of justice, unless it is apparent that the matter to be transferred is frivolous or was filed in bad faith.ˮ Amity Rubberized Pen Co. v. Market Quest Group Inc., 793 F.3d 991, 996 (9th Cir. 2015) (addressing Section 1631 of Title 28).

         Here, Horswell has not filed a formal complaint. Of the documents mentioned above, the closest to a complaint is the “Request for an immediate emergency Hearing” (“the first request”), Dkt. No. 1. Therein, Horswell asks for an emergency hearing “to determine the constitutionality of the State of Minnesota's Chapter 253B….” Id. at 1. Horswell states that people have been confined due to the illegality of Chapter 253B.[1] Although a defendant is not named in the first request, in Horswell's application to proceed in forma pauperis, he identifies the State of Minnesota as the defendant in this action. See Dkt. No. 6 at 1.

         In this light, venue is clearly wrong in the District of Hawai‘i. The State of Minnesota does not reside in this District, and none of the events-which are presumably the commitment of individuals pursuant to Chapter 253B or perhaps the passage of Chapter 253B itself-took place in this District. Instead, the District of Minnesota is the proper venue for this action.

         In another document filed in this case, Horswell makes a “[r]equest for a change in venue” (“the second request”), Dkt. No. 5.[2] Therein, Horswell states that grounds for venue in Hawai‘i are that this District is “neutral” and the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota is “corrupt.” Id. at 1. Those statements are without any explanation or support and, thus, the Court gives them no weight. As such, Horswell provides no adequate explanation for why venue is proper in Hawai‘i.[3]

         Moreover, in light of the unexplained and unsupported nature of Horswell's assertions, the clear frivolous nature of bringing this action in the District of Hawai‘i, and the result of the proceeding Horswell did bring in the District of Minnesota, it is apparent to the Court that this action was brought in bad faith. As a result, the Court declines to transfer this action, and, instead, DISMISSES it WITHOUT PREJUDICE for improper venue pursuant to Section 1406. Further, all of the pending requests for relief, Dkt Nos. 3-7, are DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1]Chapter 253B of the Minnesota Statutes, or the “Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act, ” appears to concern the civil commitment of persons with a mental illness. See ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.