Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bell v. Jackson

United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma

May 9, 2018

Sylvanius Bell, Plaintiff,
v.
Nicky Jackson, Kevin Klein, Robert Smith, Kevin Cowen, Kenneth Cowen, French Cowen, James Winters, Carmen Grant, Mark Grant, Martin King III, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          HONORABLE RONALD A. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The Complaint [Docket No. 1] in this matter was filed on April 19, 2018. The court construes Plaintiff's allegations liberally as he is pro se. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972).

         The Complaint states that Plaintiff lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. Defendants live in San Francisco, California; Palm Beach, Florida; and Dallas, Texas. Id., at Page 1-2.

         Plaintiff's Statement of Claim states as follows:

Robert Smith, Kevin Cowen, Kenneth Cowen, James Winters and Bob Blythe are watching me via my email. Clearly, they own a spyware; they are computer hackers. This is the fourth time, I have had a run in with them. They are paying people not to do business with me and RangeMe bite the bullet and accepted the money. Therefore, denying me to sell merchandise from their site by accusing me of being a distributor or a wholesaler. I am an import agent. They keep calling me a distributor and have locked me out of the their site. All of my sales are given to Janet Tate or Carmen Grant.

Id., Page 4. Plaintiff requests relief “For hardship and mental anguish, I want five million dollars.” Id., Page 4.

         On Page 2 of the Complaint, Plaintiff lists the address for Defendant No. 2, Darryl Jackson. The caption of the Complaint, however, does not list Darryl Jackson as a Defendant; the Statement of Claim also fails to mention Darryl Jackson. Id., Pages 1, 4.

         Plaintiff's arguments are “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

         Venue

         28 U.S.C.A. § 1391 states as follows:

(b) Venue in general.--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 as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court's personal ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.