Rioux v. United States of America
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02242
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rioux v. United States, Chief Judge McMahon transferred the pro se action to New Hampshire because venue was improper in New York.
Lee Ann Rioux's lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Hampshire. The New Hampshire court will decide whether the action may proceed and whether Rioux may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Rioux v. United States of America, Lee Ann Rioux brought a lawsuit without a lawyer under federal civil-rights and racketeering laws and state law. She said her claims arose from her employment with the United States Postal Service in Conway, New Hampshire.
The defendants included the United States, a law firm, and Postal Service employees. The court explained that the events underlying the claims occurred in New Hampshire and that most defendants were connected to that state for venue purposes.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire because venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. The New Hampshire court will decide whether the case may proceed without advance payment of filing fees.
The detailed version
- Rioux v. United States of America · No. 1:21-cv-02242
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
Lee Ann Rioux, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States of America (Postal Service), Orr & Reno, PLLC, other defendants, John Doe, and Sally Roe. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and state law. The opinion states that the claims arose from Rioux's employment with the United States Postal Service in Conway, New Hampshire.
A footnote explains that, if unidentified federal actors rather than state actors violated Rioux's constitutional rights, the claims could instead be understood as claims under an implied legal remedy recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The court left that issue to the transferee court. The court also noted that Rioux's tort claims against the United States could be understood as claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Venue analysis
Venue is the federal district where a case may properly be litigated. The court applied the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and the RICO venue provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a). It found that all events or omissions underlying Rioux's claims occurred in New Hampshire and that most defendants resided, were found, had an agent, or conducted business there. The court therefore concluded that venue did not appear proper in the Southern District of New York and that venue was proper in the District of New Hampshire.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The order also states that the Southern District of New York case is closed, that no summons would issue from that court, and that the transferee court would decide whether Rioux could proceed without prepaying fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order transferred the case; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.