Andrew Samuel Hango v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 2:22-cv-09385

Plaintiff Andrew Samuel Hango sued federal immigration/ICE personnel alleging deficient medical treatment and brought Bivens and FTCA claims in the Central District of California.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) concluding venue in this district was improper and recommending transfer to the Northern District of Ohio.
Hango objected, asserting venue was proper here based on diversity jurisdiction.
The district judge reviewed the R&R de novo, rejected Hango’s venue argument, and found most events underlying the claims occurred in Seneca County, Ohio (Northern District of Ohio, Western Division).
Although FTCA venue could be proper in California, the court held it was also proper in the Northern District of Ohio and ordered transfer of the entire action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 115(a)(2), 1391(b), 1406(a).
The court noted federal defendants were sued in individual and official capacities and cited Ninth Circuit authority that Bivens claims may be maintained only against individuals in their individual capacity; the court declined to decide how the Sixth Circuit would treat those claims after transfer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue in Central District of California is proper for Hango’s Bivens claims	Venue is proper here under diversity jurisdiction	Venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and is not proper in this district for the Bivens claims	Venue is not proper in the Central District; R&R accepted and claims must be transferred
Whether Northern District of Ohio is a proper venue	Implicitly argues California proper; Hango did not dispute Ohio connection	Most events/omissions (allegedly deficient treatment) occurred in Seneca County, Ohio	Northern District of Ohio is the proper venue under § 1391(b)(2)
Whether FTCA claims should remain in Central District or transfer	Hango litigated FTCA claims here (venue arguably proper)	Northern District of Ohio is also an appropriate venue because acts/omissions occurred there	Entire action including FTCA claims transferred to Northern District of Ohio
Effect of suing federal officials in official vs. individual capacity on venue	Hango named federal defendants in both capacities; maintains claims here	Official-capacity Bivens claims may be improper and could be dismissed on transfer; venue for such claims is also proper in Ohio	Court noted Ninth Circuit authority that Bivens is against individuals only but declined to resolve how Sixth Circuit would rule; transfer proceeded regardless

Consejo de Desarrollo Económico de Mexicali, A.C. v. United States, 482 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2007) (Bivens actions maintainable only against defendants in individual capacity)
Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837 F.2d 348 (9th Cir. 1987) (same principle regarding individual-capacity Bivens suits)