Etienne v. North Carolina Dept. of Administration
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05469
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Etienne v. North Carolina Department of Administration, Judge Swain transferred the case to North Carolina because venue was improper in New York.
Dineen Cherylann Etienne and the named defendants; the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of North Carolina.
What happened
Dineen Cherylann Etienne, proceeding without a lawyer, sued North Carolina officials and the North Carolina Department of Administration over events she says occurred at the North Carolina General Assembly in Raleigh.
The court found that the case belonged in the Eastern District of North Carolina, where the events occurred and where the defendants appeared to reside. It transferred the action there, terminated Etienne’s motion for an order to show cause, and closed the case in the Southern District of New York.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that Etienne could not appeal this order without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Etienne v. North Carolina Dept. of Administration · No. 1:24-cv-05469
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Dineen Cherylann Etienne brought this action without a lawyer against the North Carolina Department of Administration, Machelle Sanders, Josh Stein, and Roy Cooper. The opinion identifies Sanders as the Secretary of the Department of Administration, Stein as North Carolina’s Attorney General, and Cooper as North Carolina’s Governor. Etienne alleged that events giving rise to her claims occurred on April 17, 2024, at the North Carolina General Assembly in Raleigh, Wake County, North Carolina. The complaint also referred to a $50 million settlement and prisoner litigation, but the transfer order did not resolve the substance of those allegations.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which generally permits a civil case to be filed where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Although Etienne did not plead the defendants’ residences, the court assumed for purposes of the order that the individual defendants resided in North Carolina because they were identified as North Carolina officials. The court also noted that the alleged events occurred in Raleigh, North Carolina. It therefore concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or transfer it, in the interest of justice, to a district where the case could have been brought. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina because Raleigh is located in that district. The Clerk was directed to transfer the action and terminate Etienne’s motion for an order to show cause. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Etienne could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.