Coltrane v. Lappin
885 F.Supp.2d 228, 2012 WL 3344223, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114639 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a district court may, in the interest of justice, transfer an entire case to a district where the action could have originally been brought, even when venue is proper for some claims but improper for other, factually related claims.
Facts:
- Carlton Coltrane was an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana (USP Pollock).
- On various occasions before January 18, 2010, Coltrane informed USP Pollock staff, both verbally and in writing, that he needed to be separated from specific inmates he believed posed a threat to him.
- USP Pollock staff allegedly ignored Coltrane's notices and failed to separate him from the assailants.
- On January 18, 2010, Coltrane was stabbed and murdered by one or more inmates while incarcerated at USP Pollock.
- Mary L. Coltrane, the plaintiff and mother of the decedent, is a resident of the District of Columbia.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary L. Coltrane filed suit against the United States and ten individual federal employees in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
- The plaintiff alleged constitutional violations against the individual defendants (Bivens claims) and a tort claim against the United States (FTCA claim).
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bivens claims for, among other things, improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3).
- In the alternative to dismissal, the defendants moved to transfer the entire case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When venue is improper for Bivens claims against individual defendants but proper for a related Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claim against the United States, must a district court transfer the entire case to a proper venue in the interest of justice?
Opinions:
Majority - Walton, J.
Yes. When venue is improper for some claims but proper for others, a district court should transfer the entire case to a district where all claims could have been brought if doing so serves the interest of justice. The court determined that the claims against the individual defendants were Bivens claims, for which venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under that statute, venue was improper in the District of Columbia because not all defendants resided there and the substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Louisiana. While venue for the FTCA claim against the United States was proper in D.C. under 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) due to the plaintiff's residency, the court declined to exercise 'pendent venue' over the Bivens claims due to concerns about personal jurisdiction and judicial inefficiency. Because the entire action could have been brought in the Western District of Louisiana, and transfer serves the interests of justice by avoiding procedural obstacles and preventing the bifurcation of the case, the entire action must be transferred to that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Analysis:
This case illustrates a court's broad discretion to transfer a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to promote judicial economy and ensure a case is heard on its merits. It reinforces the principle that plaintiffs cannot 'manufacture' venue in a preferred forum, such as the District of Columbia, simply by joining a properly venued claim (like an FTCA claim based on residency) with other claims that clearly belong in another district. The court prioritizes consolidating litigation in the forum with the strongest connection to the underlying events, especially when procedural hurdles like lack of personal jurisdiction exist in the original forum. This decision shows a strong preference for transferring an entire case over dismissing claims or splitting the litigation across multiple districts.
Unlock the full brief for Coltrane v. Lappin