Spencer v. Spencer

CourtDistrict Court, D. Vermont
DecidedJuly 17, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00671
StatusUnknown

This text of Spencer v. Spencer (Spencer v. Spencer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Spencer v. Spencer, (D. Vt. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KEVIN SPENCER, Plaintiff, 25-CV-5800 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER SARAH SPENCER; ALEX SPENCER, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Kevin Spencer, who resides in Jericho, Vermont, brings this pro se action under the court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, alleging that Defendant violated his rights in Vermont and New Jersey. Named as Defendants are Alex Spencer, who resides in South Burlington, Vermont, and Sarah Spencer, who resides in South Orange, New Jersey. For the following reasons, the Court transfers this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. DISCUSSION Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (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) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. Under Section 1391(c), a “natural person” resides in the district where the person is domiciled, and an “entity with the capacity to sue and be sued” resides in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(1), (2). Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claims occurred in New Jersey and Vermont, one defendant resides in New Jersey, and the other defendant resides in Vermont. Because none of the defendants resides in this District and the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims did not occur in this District, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that venue is not proper in this Court under Section 1391(b)(1), (2).1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, if a plaintiff files a case in the wrong venue, the Court “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Although Plaintiff alleges that his claims arose in both New Jersey and Vermont, the Court understands the complaint as alleging that a substantial part of the events occurred at Plaintiff’s residence, which is in Vermont. The State of Vermont constitutes a single judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 126. Accordingly, venue lies in the District of Vermont, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), and in the interest of justice, the Court transfers this action to the United States District Court for the District of Vermont, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court

for the District of Vermont. Whether Plaintiff should be permitted to proceed further without prepayment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court.2 A summons shall not issue from this court. This order closes this case in this court.

1 This District, the Southern District of New York, is comprised of the following New York State counties: (1) New York (New York City Borough of Manhattan); (2) Bronx (New York City Borough of the Bronx); (3) Westchester; (4) Dutchess; (5) Rockland; (6) Orange; (7) Putnam; and (8) Sullivan. See 28 U.S.C. § 112(b). 2 The Court notes that Plaintiff did not pay the filing fees or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 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 the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 17, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Spencer v. Spencer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spencer-v-spencer-vtd-2025.