Daniels v. Simms et al

3:23-cv-00225-OAW

2023 | Cited 0 times | D. Connecticut | April 21, 2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CHARLES P. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. SIMMS, et al., Defendants.

: : : : : : : : :

Docket No. 3:23-cv-225 (OAW)

APRIL 21, 2023

RULING AND ORDER Self-represented Plaintiff, Charles P. Daniels (“Plaintiff”) , filed this action asserting claims associated with his incarceration in Texas. Plaintiff resides in Texas and all defendants are identified as employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On February 22, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue. Plaintiff was directed to file his response on or before March 8, 2023. See ECF No. 8. Plaintiff did not respond to the order or seek additional time within which to do so. Thus, on March 10, 2023, the court dismissed the case for improper venue. See ECF No. 9.

Plaintiff has filed four motions since the case was dismissed: a Motion to Reopen and a motion for extension of time 1

were filed on March 21, 2023; a response to the court’s (February 22, 2023) show cause order was filed on March 24, 2023; and a Motion of Demand Relief was filed on April 14, 2023. Although Plaintiff repeatedly demands that

1 For clarity of the record, the “Motion to Extion” at ECF No. 11 seeks time to conduct an investigation. the court reopen his case, he provides no information indicating that venue is proper in the District of Connecticut. Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” or in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2). As no defendant resided in Connecticut and none of the events underlying Plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Connecticut, venue is improper. Rather, all defendants reside in Texas and all events occurred there. Thus, Plaintiff must file his case in Texas. Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13] are DENIED. The Clerk of Court hereby is directed to please return any future documents Plaintiff files in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 21 st

day of April, 2023.

____________/s/__ _________

OMAR A. WILLIAMS United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

CHARLES P. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. SIMMS, et al., Defendants.

: : : : : : : : :

Docket No. 3:23-cv-225 (OAW)

APRIL 21, 2023

RULING AND ORDER Self-represented Plaintiff, Charles P. Daniels (“Plaintiff”) , filed this action asserting claims associated with his incarceration in Texas. Plaintiff resides in Texas and all defendants are identified as employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On February 22, 2023, the court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for improper venue. Plaintiff was directed to file his response on or before March 8, 2023. See ECF No. 8. Plaintiff did not respond to the order or seek additional time within which to do so. Thus, on March 10, 2023, the court dismissed the case for improper venue. See ECF No. 9.

Plaintiff has filed four motions since the case was dismissed: a Motion to Reopen and a motion for extension of time 1

were filed on March 21, 2023; a response to the court’s (February 22, 2023) show cause order was filed on March 24, 2023; and a Motion of Demand Relief was filed on April 14, 2023. Although Plaintiff repeatedly demands that

1 For clarity of the record, the “Motion to Extion” at ECF No. 11 seeks time to conduct an investigation. the court reopen his case, he provides no information indicating that venue is proper in the District of Connecticut. Venue is proper in “a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located,” or in “a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2). As no defendant resided in Connecticut and none of the events underlying Plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Connecticut, venue is improper. Rather, all defendants reside in Texas and all events occurred there. Thus, Plaintiff must file his case in Texas. Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13] are DENIED. The Clerk of Court hereby is directed to please return any future documents Plaintiff files in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 21 st

day of April, 2023.

____________/s/__ _________

OMAR A. WILLIAMS United States District Judge

Case Summary:
To generate a summary for Daniels v. Simms et al click here.
Back to top