Brown v. Guardsmark, LLC

Filing 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff's 2 request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 solely for the purpose of this Order. Plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause why this action should not be transf erred to the Eastern District of Virginia within 30 days from the date of this Order. All further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days or until plaintiff has complied with this Order. If plaintiff fails to respond to this order within 30 days, the action shall be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, on 4/30/2012. C/mailed to pro se Plaintiff. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)

fl •.ED ~cu,~
. OFFlCa5"'f~
N

IN~OURT e.o. .Y.

U.s.DIS .

*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------________________x
PAUL W. BROWN,

APR 30 2012

.

*

BROOKLYN OFFlCE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
12-CV-1538 (CBA)

Plaintiff,
-againstGUARDSMARK, LLC.,
Defendant.

--_____________________________x
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as codified at 42 U.S.C. § § 2000e - 2000e-17 ("Title VII"). Plaintiff is suing
Guardsmark, LLC, a security company, alleging that he was discriminated against because of his
race. It appears from plaintiffs complaint that the alleged discrimination occurred while plaintiff
was working for defendant in Williamsburg, Virginia, which is in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
Plaintiff states that he has since "relocated to N ew York" and provides a Brooklyn
address. However, Title VII does not provide for venue where the plaintiff resides. Rather it
provides that an action by an aggrieved person may be brought either (1) "in any judicial district
in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed," (2)
"in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained
and administered," or (3) "in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have
worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice." Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3);
Minette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1026-27 (2d Cir. 1993).
The facts alleged in the plaintiff s complaint support the conclusion that the Eastern
1

District of Virginia would be the most appropriate venue for this action because it is the location
where the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have occurred. This Court has discretion
under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Virginia in accordance
with Title VII's venue provision, or to dismiss it for lack of venue. Minnette, 997 F.2d 1023,
1025 (2d Cir. 1999). The Court finds that it would be appropriate to exercise its statutory
authority and transfer this case to the Eastern District of Virginia. However, because this Court
has raised the issue of transferring venue sua sponte, the Court grants the plaintiff thirty (30) days
from the date of this order to show cause why the matter should not be transferred to the Eastern
District of Virginia.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
solely for the purpose of this Order. Plaintiff is hereby directed to show cause why this action
should not be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia within thirty (30) days from the date
of this order. All further proceedings shall be stayed for thirty (30) days or until plaintiff has
complied with this order. If plaintiff fails to respond to this order within thirty days, the action
shall be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in
forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S.
438,444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.

/S/

Da~:

Brooklyn, New York
~ ~ ,2012

C~ol B~gl;y A16'~~'" ~

J

United States District udge
2