Anthony Scott sued the State of Texas, Dallas County, Danielle Uher, and Thomas D’Amore in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, apparently raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of venue, and Scott appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
The factual background of the case is sparse, as noted by both the district and appellate courts. Scott filed a complaint in the Northern District of Oklahoma against various Texas-based defendants, including the State of Texas and Dallas County. He also sought to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). While his IFP motion was pending, the district court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of venue without following certain procedural requirements typically required for sua sponte venue dismissals.
Legal Analysis
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Venue: The Tenth Circuit addressed whether the district court properly dismissed the case sua sponte for improper venue. While acknowledging that the district court did not follow the usual procedures required for sua sponte venue dismissals under Stjernholm v. Peterson, the court found the dismissal proper under Trujillo v. Williams. The court explained that during IFP screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), district courts can consider venue sua sponte without following the typical procedural requirements.
Venue Analysis: The court found that Scott failed to demonstrate venue was proper in Oklahoma under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The court rejected Scott’s arguments about federal government involvement, noting the United States was not a defendant. While Scott suggested his complaint included ADA claims, he did not argue that ADA’s special venue provisions applied or that venue would be proper in Oklahoma under those provisions.
Transfer of Venue: The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to transfer the case to another district. The allegations in Scott’s complaint were too sparse to determine where venue might be proper.
Recusal Issue: The court declined to consider Scott’s argument that the district judge should have recused sua sponte, finding the issue both forfeited (not raised below) and waived (not properly argued on appeal).
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal without prejudice for lack of venue.
Schrag on Law 