Wallace v. City of Hampton et al
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Roderick C. Young on 6/5/2023. Copy mailed to pro se Plaintiff as directed. (jsmi, )
Case 4:23-cv-00073-AWA-LRL Document 23 Filed 06/05/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 147
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
RICHELLE D. WALLACE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF HAMPTON, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:23cv25 (RCY)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a civil rights and discrimination lawsuit brought by pro se Plaintiff Richelle D.
Wallace against the City of Hampton, the City of Hampton Fire and Rescue Department, and
various individuals employed by these entities (collectively, “Defendants”).1 The matter is before
the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Transfer to the Newport News Division (ECF No. 6), filed
on March 7, 2023. Plaintiff requested an extension to respond to Defendants’ Motion and their
simultaneously filed Motion to Dismiss, which the Court granted, giving Plaintiff until May 12,
2023 to file her responses. Order, ECF No. 10. On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed her Responses
(styled as “Objections”, see ECF Nos. 15–17) to Defendants’ Motions. Defendants replied on
May 22, 2023 (ECF Nos. 18, 19), and the matter is thus ripe for review. The Court dispenses
with oral argument, finding that it would not aid in the decisional process. )HG5&LY3
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Transfer.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
At the district level, venue is proper either (1) in a district where any defendant resides, if
1
On May 15, the Court issued a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why her claims against
Defendants Robert A. Brylewski and David Layman should not be dismissed for failure to serve within the 90 days
provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Order, ECF No. 14. One day after the show cause deadline, Plaintiff filed a
response requesting additional time to serve Defendants Brylewski and Layman and also requesting that the Court
order the appearing-Defendants to provide current addresses for the unserved Defendants, so that service might be
effected. Reply to Show Cause, ECF No. 21. Given the impending transfer of venue, the undersigned leaves to the
discretion of the receiving Court whether to grant Plaintiff’s request, or not.
Case 4:23-cv-00073-AWA-LRL Document 23 Filed 06/05/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 148
all defendants are residents of the state in which that district is located; (2) a 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 district in which any defendant is
subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction, if neither (1) nor (2) apply. 28 U.S.C. § 1391. This is
not the end of the analysis, however, as venue must also be proper in the particular division within
the District in which a plaintiff files. See E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 3(C) (“Civil actions for which
venue is proper in this district shall be brought in the proper division, as well.”). In determining
the proper division in which an action shall be filed, the district-level venue rules stated in 28
U.S.C. § 1391 also apply, albeit with the substitution of the word “division” for “district” in venue
options (1)–(3) above. Id.
When a plaintiff files suit in the wrong district or division, the district court may transfer
such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
II. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s claims stem from her time spent employed by the City of Hampton Fire and
Rescue Department and the fallout from Defendants’ termination of her employment. See
generally Complaint, ECF No. 1. On the face of the Complaint, there is no nexus between
Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendants and the Richmond 'ivision of the Eastern District of
Virginia,2 and none of the possible qualifications for proper venue appear to apply for the
Richmond 'ivision.
To begin with, Defendants are certainly not all residents of the Richmond 'ivision, given
the presence of the City of Hampton and the City of Hampton Fire and Rescue Department as
Defendants. Second, Plaintiff’s claims arise from her employment by and in the City of Hampton,
2
Plaintiff is correct that the Eastern District of Virginia encompasses Richmond, but that is not the end of
the venue analysis.
2
Case 4:23-cv-00073-AWA-LRL Document 23 Filed 06/05/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 149
which lies outside of the Richmond 'ivision. See E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 3(b)(4) (listing the
counties and cities encompassed by the Richmond 'ivision). Thus, a “substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] claim[s]” did not occur in the Richmond 'ivision. Third, nothing
on the face of the Complaint suggests that Defendants are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction
in connection with Plaintiff’s claims, again given their lack of nexus to the geographic area
encompassed by the Richmond 'ivision. Accordingly, none of the three possible avenues for laying
venue in Richmond are available to Plaintiff, and venue is thus improper in this division.
Venue does, however, appear proper in the Newport News 'ivision. The City of Hampton
lies in the Newport News 'ivision of the Eastern District of Virginia, not the Richmond 'ivision.
E.D. Va. Local Civ. R. 3(C)(2). Thus, even though the question of whether all Defendants reside in
the Newport News 'ivision is as-yet unsettled,3 it is apparent on the face of the Complaint that a
“substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to [Plaintiff’s] claim[s]” occurred in the
Newport News 'ivision, inasmuch as they occurred in the City of Hampton.
III. CONCLUSION
Because venue properly lies in the Newport News 'ivision of the Eastern District
of Virginia under the second prong of § 1391(b), and because there is no basis for venue in
the Richmond 'ivision, the Court will exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406
and transfer the case to WKHNewport News 'LYLVLRQ.
An appropriate Order shall issue.
/s/
Roderick C. Youn
Young
unng
ates District
ctt Judge
Juddge
United States
Richmond, Virginia
Date: June 5, 2023
3
Plaintiff’s request that Defendants provide the current home addresses of Defendants Brylewski and
Layman (see ECF No. 21) leaves open the possibility of their residence outside of the Newport
News division.
Nee
N
n..
n
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?