1 2 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 HEATH VINCENT FULKERSON, Case No. 20-cv-00481-MMC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 v. MOTION TO SUBMIT AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER TO SHOW 9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et CAUSE al., 10 Defendants. 11

12 By order filed May 18, 2020, the Court extended to June 10, 2020, the deadline to 13 serve the defendants named in the above-titled action, and extended to June 17, 2020, 14 the deadline for plaintiff to file proof of service. On June 15, 2020, plaintiff filed proof of 15 service, showing defendants were served on June 10, 2020. 16 Now before the Court is plaintiff’s “Motion to Submit Amended Complaint,” filed 17 June 8, 2020. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days 18 after serving it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby 19 GRANTED. 20 The Court notes, however, that the above-titled action is brought solely against 21 United States agencies, and, in any such action, venue is only proper in the “judicial 22 district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the events 23 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is 24 the subject of the action is situated, or (3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is 25 involved in the action.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). Under this section, venue in the instant 26 action does not appear to be proper in the Northern District of California. 27 First, for purposes of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), federal agencies “reside in Washington, D.C.,” see Williams v. United States, No. C-01-0024 EDL, 2001 || WL 1352885, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2001) (holding “[vJjenue does not lie in every || judicial district where a federal agency has a regional office” (citing Reuben H. Donnelly || Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm'n, 580 F.2d 264, 267 (7th Cir. 1978))), and, consequently, || venue based on defendants’ residence is only proper in the District of Columbia. Second, plaintiff does not allege that a substantial part of the events or omissions |} giving rise to his claim occurred in the Northern District of California. Rather, according || to the initial complaint, the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff's claims “have all Q || occurred in and around the Reno, Nevada area.” (See Compl., filed Jan. 22, 2020, at 4.) 10 || Likewise, all the events described in plaintiff's amended complaint appear to have 11 occurred in Nevada. (See Amended Compl., filed June 8, 2020.) Further, to the extent g 12 real property is the subject of the instant action, the only such property noted in either the 13 initial or amended complaint is plaintiff's residence, which, according to plaintiff, is located 14 || in Reno, Nevada. (See Compl. at 1; Amended Compl. at 3:1.) Consequently, venue 2 15 || under both 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(2) and § 1391(e)(3) is only proper in the District of a 16 || Nevada. 17 Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no 5 18 || later than June 26, 2020, why the above-titled action should not be dismissed for 19 improper venue, without prejudice to refiling in the District Court for the District of Nevada 20 || or the District Court for the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 || Dated: June 16, 2020 {bit Chat MAKINE M. CHESNEY 24 Unitéd States District Judge 25 26 27 28