Hodge v. USA

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

OSBORNE A. HODGE, JR., IDA SMITH, VERL ) E. THOMAS, HAROLD A. THOMAS, ) AMERICA HODGE SMITH, PATRICIA ) SMITH, ADEMOLA OLUGEBEFOLA, ) ) Case No. 3:20-cv-0042 Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and DAVID ) L. BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as ) Secretary of the Interior, U.S. ) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ) NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ET AL., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 10), entered June 22, 2023, and the Affidavit (docketed as “Letter”) of Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas submitted in Ir.e BspAoCnKsGeR thOeUreNtDo. A(ENCDF PNRoO. 1C8E)D. URAL HISTORY As recounted in the said Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs originally filed this action in sua sponte the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:20-cv- See 03451 (S.D.N.Y.)). ECF No. 1 at 1. The New York Southern District Court See transferred the matter to this Court. ECF No. 7. Plaintiffs then appealed the transfer order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 20-1661 (2d Cir.)). See Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 8, 1:20-cv-03451 (S.D.N.Y.)). By Mandate issued November 16, 2020, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mandate (ECF No. 9, 1:20-cv-03451 (S.D.N.Y.); ECF No. 58, Case No. 20-1661 (2d Cir.)), filed November 16, 2020. After review of the record herein and finding that Plaintiffs failed to take any action Case No. 3:20-cv-0042 O rder Page 2 of 4 should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 10 at 2. In addition, the Court Id cautioned that if Plaintiffs failed to show cause by the July 21, 2023, deadline, the matter would be dismissed. . The record shows that a copy of the order was sent to each individual Plaintiff ECF No. 11, and that only Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas has filed any response to the said Order to 1 Show Cause. The envelopes sent to five other Plaintiffs were returned, bearing the stamp See “Return to Sender/Insufficient Address/Unable to Forward,” with the one addressed to Plaintiff Ida Thomas also having “no longer live at this address” hand-written across it. ECF Nos. 13-17. The return receipt from the envelope sent to Plaintiff Verl E. Thomas remains outstanding. In his affidavit, Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas “ask[s] that the matter . . . be transferred back to United States District Court of New York Southern District since the United States is a party defendant and venue is appropriate wherein the Plaintiff resides.” ECF No. 18 at 1, ¶ Id 5. Said Plaintiff also states that he “do[es] not consent to the jurisdiction of this non Article Id III court to decide this case . . . .” . at 1, ¶ 8. He further “request[s] a hearing . . . before the pro se see, case is transferred or dismissed . . . .“ . at 1, ¶ 10. e.g., Morisseau v. Borough of N. Arlington Because the Court must liberally construe the filings of parties appearing , , Civil action No. 16-8367, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51701, at *32 (D.N.J. Mar. 28, 2018) (“Courts liberally construe documents filed by pro se plaintiffs, and hold the filings to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys.” (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 167 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (2007)), the Court construes Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas’s filing as a motion to transfer venue and return this matter to the New York Southern IDI.i sDtrIiScCt UCSoSuIrOt.N Motions to transfer venue normally are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404. However, as the New York Southern District Court found in its transfer order, this proceeding is an action to quiet title of real property in which the United States claims an interest under 28 U.S.C. §

1 Mr. Thomas’s affidavit is dated July 25, 2023; the envelope is postmarked August 16, 2023; and, the document Case No. 3:20-cv-0042 O rder Page 3 of 4 2409a. Transfer Order (ECF No. 7), entered May 12, 2020, at 1. Plaintiff is correct that, in cases brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346, venue lies in the jurisdiction where the plaintiff resides. 28 U.S.C. § 1402(a). However, 28 shall be brought in the district court of the district where the U.S.C. § 1402(d), specifically provides that actions to quiet title of real property in which the property is located Id United States claims an interest “ . . . .” . (emphasis added). Thus, the New York Southern District Court properly transferred this matter to this Court because the real property at issue is located in St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands. Accordingly, in the event said Plaintiff desires to maintain this suit, he must litigate it in this Court. Regarding said Plaintiff’s objection to the jurisdiction of this “non Article III court,” it See, e.g., United States v. Virgin Islands is well-settled that this Court has been granted jurisdiction equivalent to an Article III court. , 363 F.3d 276, 284 n.3 (3d. Cir. 2004) (“The District cited in Government Employees Retirement Court of the Virgin Islands is an Article IV court, but is authorized by statute to exercise System of the Virgin Islands v. Government of the Virgin Islands jurisdiction equivalent to an Article III court.”) Prime Hospitality Corp. v. General Star Indem. Co , 995 F.3d 66, 115 n.31 (3d Cir. 2021)); ., Civil No. 1997-91, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6725, at *4-5 (D.V.I. Apr. 29, 2999) (“Although the District Court of the Virgin Islands is not a United States district court established under Article III of the Constitution, Congress nevertheless has granted it the diversity jurisdiction of a true United States district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”) Consequently, regardless of said Plaintiff’s not “consenting” to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear this matter, this Court has the authority to decide this case. Finally, notwithstanding said Plaintiff’s request, the Court determines that a hearing is not necessary and will exercise its discretion to issue this ruling on the motion without 2 one. See, e.g., Berger 2v. Hahnemann Univ. Hosp Due process does not require a hearing upon every motion or every time a party requests one. ., 765 F. App’x 699, 703 (3d Cir. 2019) (“Due process guarantees a litigant the right to be heard. The right to be heard in the context of a motion to dismiss is satisfied where the plaintiff receives the ‘opportunity to present legal arguments either orally, in writing, or both at the District Court's discretion.’ Dougherty v. Harper's Magazine Co., 537 F.2d 758, 761 (3d Cir. 1976); see also FCC v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Inc., 337 U.S. 265, 276, 69 S. Ct. 1097, 93 L. Ed. 1353 (1949) (‘[T]he right of oral argument as a matter of procedural due process varies from case to case in accordance with differing circumstances, as do Case No. 3:20-cv-0042 O rder Page 4 of 4 III. CONCLUSION OFoRrD thEeR EfoDregoing reasons, it is hereby DISHCARGED that the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 10) is ; it is furtherO RDERED DENIED that Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas’s motion to transfer venue (ECF No. 18) is O;R iDt iEs RfuErDther that, in the eveSnet psateidm Pblaeirn 3ti0ff, c 2h0o2o3ses to proceed with this matter, he shall file with the Court, no later than , properly prepared Summonses to be issued tOoR DDeEfeRnEdDants; it is further DISMISSED that if no Summonses are filed by the stated deadline, this matter shall be ORDE wRiEthDout further notice to Plaintiffs; and, it is further that the Clerk’s Office shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff Harold A. Thomas via certified mail, return receipt requested. Dated: / Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY Augus t 23, 20 23 Csh/i ef Judge