Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2024

Lawtone-Bowles v. Liberty University

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04597
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lawtone-Bowles v. Liberty University, Judge Swain transferred the case to Virginia without deciding the plaintiff’s discrimination claims.

Who this affects

Nicole Lawtone-Bowles’s case will proceed, if allowed by the transferee court, in the Western District of Virginia rather than the Southern District of New York. The defendants will litigate the action in that district. The transfer order did not resolve the underlying claims.

What happened

In Lawtone-Bowles v. Liberty University, Nicole Lawtone-Bowles, representing herself, sued Liberty University, its School of Health Sciences and online programs, and three individuals. She alleged that the defendants violated federal civil-rights laws while she was enrolled in an online program and wrongfully expelled her.

The court concluded that the Western District of Virginia was a more convenient location because the underlying events occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia, and relevant witnesses and documents were expected to be there. The court also noted that it had transferred an earlier related case to that district.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Virginia under the federal transfer statute. The court did not decide whether the discrimination claims were valid, directed that no summons issue from that court, closed the case, and denied fee-free appeal status.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lawtone-Bowles v. Liberty University · No. 1:24-cv-04597
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Nicole Lawtone-Bowles filed this self-represented action under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. She alleged that Liberty University, Liberty University School of Health Sciences, Liberty University Online Programs, Mallory Nicole Ball, Brendan Haynie, and Heidi DiFrancesca violated her federally protected rights during her enrollment in an online academic program and wrongfully expelled her.

The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that Lawtone-Bowles resides in Highland Falls, in Orange County, New York. Liberty University is located in Lynchburg, Virginia, and the individual defendants were provided with work addresses in Lynchburg. Lawtone-Bowles alleged that the events occurred in New York through the online college program.

Transfer Analysis

The court discussed the federal venue rules and the statute allowing a court to transfer a case, even when venue is proper, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court stated that the events underlying the action occurred in Lynchburg, where most defendants appeared to reside, and that relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be located there. Lynchburg is in Campbell County, within the Western District of Virginia.

The court also relied on the fact that Lawtone-Bowles had previously filed a related action in the Southern District of New York concerning her online enrollment at Liberty University. That earlier case was transferred to the Western District of Virginia under the same transfer statute.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The order did not decide the merits of Lawtone-Bowles’s discrimination claims. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without prepaying filing fees, directed that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York, and closed the case there.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.