JUDGEGATE: THE ABSURD REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Note: without any case citations, except Plaintiff’s.
Wednesday, Aug. 30, 2023
Plaintiff Joanna Burke purported to sue Defendants in this Court, claiming this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit “because it involves questions of federal law and . . . because it is the correct court which may resolve this complaint when fraud is involved.”
Compl. at 15, Dkt. No. 1.
Burke also presents her lawsuit as one “pertain[ing] to claims against the judicial machinery itself,” presumably because one named individual Defendant is a case manager at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the other two individual Defendants are attorneys.
Burke’s complaint is silent as to why venue is proper in this district; it does not establish that she or any Defendant resides in Minnesota. Nor did the subject events take place here.
Questioning whether this Court is the proper venue for Burke’s lawsuit, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster ordered Burke to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed.
[Dkt. No. 9].
Judge Foster explained that Burke “must establish how this district is an appropriate venue for this litigation under [28 U.S.C.] section 1391(b). Id. at 2.
Burke timely responded to the Order [Dkt. No. 17].
Her response again claims that her lawsuit is “directed at the judicial machinery itself.” Dkt. No. 17 at 7 (citing Workman v. Bell, 484 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007)).
That response misses the issue.
That Burke purports to bring a federal cause of action, establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction, does not automatically make any federal district court a proper venue for her claim.
She has not provided any information establishing that the District of Minnesota is a proper venue for her claims.
Furthermore, based on a review of Burke’s complaint, the Southern District of Texas appears to be the appropriate venue for this lawsuit because “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” occurred there.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), and for the reasons explained above, this Court RECOMMENDS THAT Burke’s Complaint [Dkt. No. 1] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: August 30, 2023 s/David T. Schultz DAVID T. SCHULTZ
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72
Deadline; Wednesday, September 13, 2023
“(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Workman v. Bell, 484 F.3d 837, 840 n.1 (6th Cir. 2007)
(“The elements of fraud on the court include conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the court;
2) that is directed at the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, wilfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose;
and
5) that deceives the court.
See Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 10 F.3d 338, 348 (6th Cir. 1993).”)
U.S. District Court
U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:23-cv-01119-WMW-DTS
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright Referred to: Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act | Date Filed: 04/19/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/16/2023 | 18 | ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz for all further proceedings. NOTE: the new case number is 23-cv-1119 WMW/DTS. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 8/16/2023.(MMG) (Entered: 08/16/2023) |
| 08/19/2023 | 19 | Corrected MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke. (Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/19/2023) |
| 08/19/2023 | 20 | PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 19 Corrected MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/19/2023) |
| 08/19/2023 | 21 | EXHIBIT Lawyer Turned Judge as a Witness for Defendant re 19 Corrected MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/19/2023) |
| 08/19/2023 | 22 | EXHIBIT Legally Void Orders Can Be Challenged Anywhere re 19 Corrected MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/19/2023) |
| 08/30/2023 | 23 | REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Complaint, filed by Joanna Burke. Signed by Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz on 8/30/2023. (TJB) (Entered: 08/30/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/01/2023 09:05:48 |
U.S. District Court
U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:23-cv-01119-WMW-DTS
Burke v. PHH Mortgage Corporation et al Assigned to: Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright Referred to: Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act | Date Filed: 04/19/2023 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 07/26/2023 | 14 | PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 12 Amended MOTION to Certify Interlocutory Appeal (corrected certificate of service date) filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 07/26/2023) |
| 08/15/2023 | 15 | First MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke. (Attachments: DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. TO BE REFILED//# 1 Exhibit(s) Lawyer Turned Judge as a Witness for Defendant in Minnesota Federal Court Criminal Proceeding, DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. TO BE REFILED//# 2 Exhibit(s) Legally Void Orders Can Be Challenged Anywhere)(Burke, Joanna) Modified text on 8/17/2023 (ACH). (Entered: 08/15/2023) |
| 08/15/2023 | 16 | PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 15 First MOTION Take Judicial Notice filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/15/2023) |
| 08/15/2023 | 17 | RESPONSE re 9 Order to Show Cause filed by Joanna Burke.(Burke, Joanna) (Entered: 08/15/2023) |
| 08/16/2023 | 18 | ORDER OF RECUSAL. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster recused. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz for all further proceedings. NOTE: the new case number is 23-cv-1119 WMW/DTS. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster on 8/16/2023.(MMG) (Entered: 08/16/2023) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/01/2023 09:16:48 |