Som v. Supreme Court of Alabama et al

Filing 5

ORDER to Transfer to the USDC for the Middle District of Alabama by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/14/15. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01450-GPG
ERIC M. SOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, and
ALABAMA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

ORDER TO TRANSFER

On May 29, 2015, Plaintiff Eric M. Som, acting pro se, submitted to the Court a
Complaint and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Long Form). Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915 on July
9, 2015. The Court must construe the Complaint liberally because Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court cannot act as a pro se litigant’s
advocate. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have denied his application to practice law in the
State of Alabama in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment
Rights), the Dormant Clause, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and
the Privileges and Immunities or Comity Clause Under Article IV, section 2. Compl.,
ECF No. 1. Plaintiff further contends that venue is proper in this Court, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391, because a substantial part of the events or omissions on which the claim is

based occurred in the District of Colorado. Id. at 3. As relief, Plaintiff asks this Court to

(1) find that Defendants violated his constitutional rights, the ADA, the Dormant Clause,
and the Privileges and Immunities or Comity Clause; (2) reinstate Plaintiff’s application
for admission to the Alabama State Bar without requiring Plaintiff to resit for the bar
exam in that State, or retake the MPRE; and (3) impose any other relief deemed just
and equitable by this Court. Id. at 18-19.
Here, where Plaintiff’s claims arise under the laws of the United States, the
appropriate venue provision is 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which provides that
[a] civil action wherein jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity of
citizenship may, except as otherwise provided in law, be brought only in
(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside
in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part
of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which
the action may otherwise be brought.
For the reasons stated below, the Court finds venue is not proper in this Court and will
transfer the action to a federal district court where venue is proper.
First, Defendants reside in Alabama and not Colorado.
Second, although Plaintiff makes a conclusory statement that a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the State of Colorado,
nothing in the Complaint supports this statement. Plaintiff asserts that he
communicated with Defendants via e-mail from Colorado, sought medical treatment in
Colorado for any anxiety that he incurred due to the denial of his application for
admission to the Alabama State Bar and to the denial of his appeal to the Alabama
Supreme Court, and possibly set for the National Conference of Bar Examiners in the
State of Colorado. These assertions do not support a finding that a substantial part of
the events or omissions took place in Colorado.

2

Plaintiff states that he first challenged the State Bar’s noted deficiencies in his
application by sending a certified letter to the State Bar on May 22, 2014. ECF No. 1 at
5. He further asserts that he contacted the Alabama Supreme Court on May 30, 2014,
and received advice to pursue a extraordinary petition in the Supreme Court to
challenge the denial, which he did on June 4, 2014, id. at 8; but prior to the Supreme
Court’s decision the State Bar withdrew consideration of his application for bar
admission on August 14, 2014, based on an increase in the required minimum score by
the Alabama State Bar, id. at 9. Finally, Plaintiff sent a certified letter to the Alabama
Supreme Court and the Alabama State Bar on December 2014, in a “good faith
attempt,” to resolve the issues, but neither Defendant responded to the letter.
The cause of action is based on Plaintiff’s pursuit for admission to practice law in
the State of Alabama and the subsequent denial of admission by the Alabama State
Bar. In other words, the State of Alabama is where the “forum state audience” is found
and is the focal point of Plaintiff’s actions. Cf. Schrader v. Biddinger, 633 F.3d 1235,
1241 & 1244 (10th Cir. 2011). Therefore, because defendants are located in Alabama
and the events at issue occurred in Alabama, venue is more proper in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), “[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a
case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest
of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” “A court may sua sponte . . . cure venue defects by transferring a suit under
the federal transfer statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631, when it is in the interests
of justice.” see Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006) (the phrase
“if it is in the interest of justice,” in §§ 1406(a) and 1631, is interpreted as granting the
3

district court discretion to transfer or dismiss the action). Because a summary dismissal
of Plaintiff’s claims is not warranted, the Court finds it is in the interest of justice to
transfer this case to United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that this action shall be transferred to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama (Alabama Middle District, Main Office, Frank M.
Johnson, Jr. United States Courthouse, P.O. Box 711, Montgomery, AL 36101)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
DATED July 14, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

4