Wynn v. Harris

Background

Eric James Wynn, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action invoking federal-question jurisdiction. He asserted possible violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and claims that may arise under state law. The dispute concerned real property in Lunenberg County, Virginia. The defendants were Annette D. Watkins Harris, Robert E. Hawthorne Jr., Lisa Bradshaw, and clerks of the Lunenberg Circuit Court.

The opinion states that Wynn resides in Hartsdale, New York; Harris resides in Maryland; and Hawthorne and Bradshaw appear to be attorneys with a law office in Victoria, Virginia. Wynn did not allege the residences of Hawthorne, Bradshaw, or the court clerks, but gave work addresses in Lunenberg County. The complaint concerned a state-court partition proceeding involving real estate in Lunenberg County. Harris was one of the plaintiffs in that proceeding, Wynn was one of the defendants, and Hawthorne and Bradshaw represented the plaintiffs there.

Venue analysis

Venue is the proper federal district in which a civil action may be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue may generally lie where all defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York because Wynn did not allege that any defendant resided there, that the property was there, or that a substantial part of the relevant events occurred there.

The court determined that the claims arose in Lunenberg County, which is in the Eastern District of Virginia. It therefore concluded that venue lay in the Eastern District of Virginia under § 1391(b)(2). The court transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer when venue is improper.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was directed to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The court ordered that a summons not issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case there. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Wynn’s allegations were legally valid.