The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TYRONE HURT, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-101 RLW
)
AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of plaintiff Tyrone Hurt for leave to
commence this civil action without prepayment of the required filing fee. Having reviewed the
motion and the financial information submitted in support, the Court finds that it should be granted.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss
this action on the basis of improper venue.
The Complaint
Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who currently resides in the District of Columbia. He brings
this civil action against the American College Dictionary1, the International Criminal Court2, the
International Court of Justice3, the International Peace Court4, the United States of America, the
District of Columbia Board of Parole and the United States Parole Commission. Plaintiff asserts
1The American College Dictionary was the first Random House dictionary and was later expanded to create the
Random House Dictionary of the English Language. It was first published in 1947. Plaintiff has not made any claims
in his complaint against this defendant.
2 The International Criminal Court is an intergovernmental organization that sits in The Hague, Netherlands. It has
jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and
crimes of aggression. Plaintiff has not made any claims against this defendant in his complaint.
3 The International Court of Justice, oftentimes referred to as the World Court, is the judicial branch of the United
Nations. It is located in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. It gives advisory opinions on international legal
issues referred to it by the United Nations
4 The Court believes plaintiff is referring to the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Court of
Justice is located in the Peace Palace.
that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1332, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1975, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
Plaintiff’s brief “Statement of Claim” is only partially legible. However, it appears that
plaintiff is asserting that he believes it is illegal for the District of Columbia Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency to require him to report to lifetime supervision.
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 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 or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought, any judicial district in which
any defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction. If venue is improper, the Court must
either dismiss the action or, in the interest of justice, transfer the action to the proper district. 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff has not alleged any basis for venue being proper in this Court. Plaintiff resides in
the District of Columbia. Moreover, there is absolutely no indication that any part of the events or
omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in the Eastern District of Missouri. In short, none of
the requirements of § 1391 are present in this case. Therefore, venue in the Eastern District of
Missouri is not proper.
As noted above, if venue is improper, the Court may either dismiss the action or, if it is in
the interest of justice, transfer the case to the district in which it could have been brought. Here, it
is not in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the District of Columbia.
Review of plaintiff’s federal court filings indicate that he has filed hundreds of cases in
district courts across the United States. See Hurt v. Civil Rights Lawyer, No. 3:17-cv-39-DJH
(W.D. Ky. March 22, 2017) (noting that instant case was “not the first time Hurt has brought in
this Court a disjointed complaint with no connection to this jurisdiction, and, in fact, Hurt has a
pattern of doing so in courts across the country”); and Hurt v. D.C. Board of Parole, et al., No.
1:13-cv-5365-LAP (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2013) (noting that plaintiff has “filed hundreds of lawsuits
around the country that [have] been dismissed as frivolous”). Plaintiff’s propensity for filing
multiple, frivolous lawsuits has subjected him to prefiling injunctions in numerous federal courts.
See Hurt v. Nat’l Museum of African-American History & Culture, No. 5:17-cv-97-H (E.D.N.C.
May 30, 2017) (collecting cases). Indeed, plaintiff has been barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Hurt v. United States,
No. 1:19-cv-2785-UNA (D.D.C. Oct. 8, 2019). He has also been barred from proceeding in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Hurt
v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 544 F.3d 308, 311 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
Here, venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
However, as discussed above, plaintiff is barred from filing an action in forma pauperis in that
district. As such, transfer of this case to the District of Columbia would be pointless. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss this action.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(Docket No. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of proper venue.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith.
Dated this 13" day of February, 2020.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE