Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff David R. Pete, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a complaint against AdaptHealth Corp. alleging negligence and breach of implied contract arising from a June 15, 2026 data breach that exposed his personally identifiable information and protected health information. The initial complaint was screened and found unsuitable for service because it failed to establish venue in the Eastern District of California. The court noted that while the defendant allegedly conducted business in West Sacramento, the complaint did not allege that any specific acts or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of the First Amended Complaint without further leave to amend. The Amended Complaint fails to cure the venue defect: it omits the defendant's Pennsylvania citizenship and vaguely alleges the defendant is organized under the laws of a state other than Texas with operations outside Texas, while conducting business in California. It does not allege the defendant is a citizen of California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred in the Eastern District of California. Because the plaintiff is an experienced federal litigant who was given specific guidance on venue requirements but responded by obscuring facts rather than clarifying them, further amendment would be futile. The case is recommended for dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to establish venue.
The recommendation did not itself terminate the action. It gave Pete 21 days after service to object, and expressly stated that the district judge would make the final decision. The court also stopped short of finding that Pete deliberately selected this district to avoid restrictions elsewhere, while cautioning that any federal filing must have a real connection to the chosen district.
Key Takeaways
- Venue in a specific judicial district requires either that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred there, or that all defendants reside in that state; mere corporate operations in a district are insufficient.
- A pro se plaintiff's amended complaint that deliberately obscures jurisdictional facts (such as defendant's state of citizenship) rather than clarifying them supports a finding that further leave to amend would be futile.
- Courts may consider a plaintiff's litigation history in other districts—including warnings about frivolous filings and vexatious litigant designations—when determining whether to grant further leave to amend.
- Dismissal without leave to amend is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) when a plaintiff fails to establish venue after being given specific guidance and an opportunity to cure the defect.
- The screening standard under § 1915(e)(2) requires dismissal if the action is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant; venue defects that cannot be cured warrant dismissal at the screening stage.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the rigorous application of venue requirements at the in forma pauperis screening stage, particularly for pro se plaintiffs with a history of federal litigation. The court's refusal to grant further leave to amend—based on the plaintiff's failure to allege any connection between the claims and the Eastern District of California despite explicit judicial guidance—demonstrates that the privilege to amend is not unlimited. The ruling also highlights how courts may consider a litigant's history in other jurisdictions when assessing futility of amendment, serving as a caution against forum shopping or filing in districts lacking a genuine nexus to the claims.