The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CEDRIC GREENE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:25-cv-00950-RHH
)
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT )
AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendant. )
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is self-represented Plaintiff Cedric Greene’s Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees and Costs. Based on the
financial information provided in the application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is
unable to pay the filing fee. The Court grants the application and waives the filing
fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, this
case will be dismissed for improper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1406(a).
Background
Based on a search of Court records, Plaintiff has filed a total of 38 cases in
this Court since March, 2025. At least 27 of Plaintiff’s cases have already been
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue. In addition,
several other federal courts have already imposed filing restrictions on Plaintiff.
See Greene v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 750 Fed. App’x 661, 666 & n.3 (10th Cir. 2018)
(noting filing restrictions imposed on Plaintiff in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits and
federal district courts in Kansas, Utah, California, and Nevada). In January 2024,
the United States Court of Federal Claims estimated that Plaintiff had filed more
than three hundred cases in federal courts throughout the country. See Greene v.
U.S., 169 Fed. Cl. 334, 339 (2024), appeal dismissed, No. 2024-1475, 2024 WL
2239024 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2024).
The Complaint
Plaintiff brings this case under this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, although
he and the Defendant, Metropolitan Transportation Authority of Los Angeles, are
both citizens of California. Plaintiff states that on July 2, 2022, at the bus stop at
Cesar Chavez Avenue and Alameda Street, the Metro Bus driver would not allow
him to board the bus because he had a rolling cart. He does not state any legal
theory. For relief, he states, “We wish for claim processing to proceed through this
legal system . . . . We will be seeking monetary damages at a future date.” ECF
No. 1 at 5.
Discussion
Plaintiff has not established that venue is proper in this Court. Defendant is
the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Los Angeles, California and the events
complained of occurred in California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil
2
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 the property that is the subject of the action
is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which any action may otherwise be
brought, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the Court’s
personal jurisdiction. Under these venue provisions, venue is proper only in
California.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when a case is filed in a district where venue is
not proper, the district court can either dismiss the action, or if it is in the interest
of justice, the Court can transfer the case to any district in which it could have been
brought. Because of Plaintiff’s history of vexatious litigation, the Court finds it is
not in the interest of justice to transfer this case. The Court will dismiss this case
for improper venue.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
district court without prepaying fees or costs is GRANTED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of
proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1406(a).
3
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Opinion, Memorandum and
Order.
Dated this 1“ day of July, 2025.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE