1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARGARET BROOKS, No. 2:25-cv-3693-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 UNITED STATES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on 18 December 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 1 & 2. This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local 19 Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The allegations suggest that venue is improper in this 20 District. The allegations also suggest that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 21 For the following reasons, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause as to why this action should 22 not be dismissed due to improper venue or due to the absence of personal jurisdiction. 23 Plaintiff lists her address as Monterrey, California. ECF No. 1 at 1. Plaintiff names as 24 Defendants an individual located in Wisconsin, two individuals located in either Minnesota or 25 Texas, one individual in Illinois, his Illinois-based counsel, the Circuit Court of Cook County in 26 Illinois, and the United States as a whole. Id. at 2-3. The Complaint’s primary allegation is that 27 some of these Defendants are using a microchip illegally implanted during surgery to cyberstalk 28 Plaintiff, colluding with Tesla in the process. Id. at 2, 4. An exhibit from December 6, 2025, 1 shows Plaintiff’s search on her iPhone for a nearby Wal-Mart yielding results from Texas, despite 2 being in Santa Cruz, California at the time. Id. at 6. More generally, the Complaint alleges 3 Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and her children of their right to privacy in their own home 4 and car for the past 16 years, and seeks $76 million in damages. Id. at 3-4. 5 The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 6 district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 7 district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 8 giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action 9 is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 10 this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 11 jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 12 Personal jurisdiction, in turn, requires that a nonresident defendant “have at least 13 ‘minimum contacts’ with the relevant forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction ‘does not offend 14 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor 15 Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citation omitted). Personal jurisdiction can be 16 general or specific. For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant, the defendant 17 must engage in continuous and systematic general business contacts that “approximate physical 18 presence” in the forum state. Id. Alternatively, for a court to have personal jurisdiction over a 19 defendant’s specific conduct:

20 (1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; 21 or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the 22 benefits and protections of its laws; (2) The claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the 23 defendant’s forum related activities; and (3) The exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and 24 substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable. 25 Id. at 802. 26 None of the Defendants are California residents, nor are they residents of the same state. 27 ECF No 1 at 2. The Complaint also fails to allege that any of the events underlying the claim 28 transpired in this District. The only nonconclusory allegation concerns Plaintiff’s search for a 1 || Wal-Mart while in Santa Cruz, located in the Northern District of California. /d. at 6. Venue 2 || accordingly appears to be lacking in the Eastern District of California. Moreover, the absence of 3 | allegations of Defendants’ conduct in California, aside from Plaintiffs maps search on her own 4 || phone, seemingly leaves this Court without general or specific personal jurisdiction.! 5 In accordance with the above, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, 6 || within 21 days of this order, as to why this action should not be dismissed due to improper venue 7 || or due to the absence of personal jurisdiction. 8 | DATED: January 7, 2026

SEAN C. RIORDAN

11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | | To the extent that the Complaint names the United States as a Defendant (ECF No 1 at 3), Plaintiff also fails to plead that she complied with the Federal Tort Claims Act by presenting a 28 || claim to the federal agency that partook in the alleged cyberstalking. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).