Rioux v. United States of America

Background

Lee Ann Rioux filed this action without a lawyer against the United States of America, Katie French, and Orr & Reno. The opinion identifies French as a United States Postal Service employee and Orr & Reno as a New Hampshire private law firm. Rioux alleged that the defendants interfered with her First Amendment rights to religious practice, including by wrongfully discharging her from her Postal Service job at a post office in North Conway, New Hampshire.

Rioux purported to assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New Hampshire law. The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and New Hampshire state-law claims. Rioux sought damages.

Venue Analysis

Venue is the proper geographic location for a lawsuit. The court explained that Title VII claims may be filed in a district where the alleged employment violation occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, or where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged violation, subject to the statute’s other provisions. The court also explained that claims under Bivens and state law may generally be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Rioux resides in New Hampshire and alleged that all events underlying her claims occurred there. These events included French’s alleged harassment concerning Rioux’s religion while they worked at the North Conway post office, Rioux’s firing from her Postal Service job there, and Orr & Reno’s alleged failure to represent her or return her file without advising her of potential rights. The court found that Rioux alleged no facts showing why the Southern District of New York was a proper venue for any claim. It concluded that the District of New Hampshire was a proper venue for all of them.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, but it did not decide whether Rioux’s claims were legally valid. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without prepaying fees. A summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the ability to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Rioux a copy of the order and record service on the docket.