Bourne v. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bourne v. Administrative Office, Judge Swain transferred the plaintiffs’ bankruptcy-related case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York for improper venue.
The self-represented plaintiffs, Gladstone Robinson Junior and Nailah Femi Bourne, must pursue this action in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. The named defendants are affected by the transfer, while the transferee court will decide whether the plaintiffs may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Bourne v. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts concerns a self-represented action by Gladstone Robinson Junior and Nailah Femi Bourne. They alleged that their rights were violated during bankruptcy proceedings and sought relief related to foreclosure of property in Staten Island, New York.
The court found that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue because the property and apparent related bankruptcy proceedings were in the Eastern District of New York, and the complaint showed no connection to the Southern District. The court therefore transferred the case rather than deciding the underlying allegations.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk to transfer the case to the Eastern District of New York. She closed the case in the Southern District, terminated pending matters, directed that no summons issue there, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Bourne v. The Administrative Office of the United States Courts · No. 1:25-cv-01103
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 25, 2025
Background
Gladstone Robinson Junior and Nailah Femi Bourne, acting without lawyers, filed an action against the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the “United States Bankruptcy Court,” and the “United States Trustees.” The complaint was captioned for the “District Court of the United States for the Territory of New York” and described as an “Involuntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition for Non-Individual(s).” The court said the complaint mainly contained conclusory statements and legal assertions, but appeared to allege violations occurring during bankruptcy proceedings in an unidentified United States Bankruptcy Court.
The court noted that public court records showed that the plaintiffs had approximately ten matters pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs had also filed motions seeking preliminary relief concerning foreclosure of property in Staten Island, New York. Those motions listed other defendants, but the court considered them as potentially connected to one of the plaintiffs’ bankruptcy proceedings in the Eastern District.
Venue Analysis
Venue is the legally proper federal district for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred or the property is located, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.
The court determined that the action concerned foreclosure of property in Staten Island, which is in Richmond County and the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs’ claims also appeared related to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings in that district. The complaint showed no connection to the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that venue was improper in the Southern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
Ruling and Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, when a case is filed in the wrong venue, a court may dismiss it or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in the interest of justice.
The Clerk was directed to transfer the action immediately, without the usual seven-day delay. The court closed the case in the Southern District of New York, terminated all pending matters, and directed that no summons issue from that court. The court left any decision about whether the plaintiffs could proceed without prepaying fees to the transferee court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order decided venue and did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.