United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Sterling Conley Hurt, who resides in Denton, Texas, brings
this pro se action against Defendant Mississippi
John Hurt Foundation - the address of which, he states, is in
Illinois - alleging fraud, falsification of documents, and
money laundering. See Dkt. No. 3.
action has been referred to the undersigned United States
magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing
order of reference from United States District Judge Ed
22, 2019, the undersigned entered findings and conclusions
recommending that the Court dismiss this action without
prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) [Dkt. No. 6] (the
now moves to transfer his action to the Sherman Division of
the Eastern District of Texas (“Sherman”).
See Dkt. No. 7. The Court should deny this motion
for the reasons stated below and in the Initial FCR and
dismiss this action under Section 1406(a) for the reasons
stated in the Initial FCR.
provides the Court no basis to transfer this action to
Sherman. But, for the reasons explained in the Initial FCR,
venue is not proper in this division and this district, so a
transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is not proper. And,
while Section 1406(a) provides that “[t]he district
court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in
the wrong division or district 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), Hurt fails to show - either in his
motion or in his complaint - that this case “could have
been brought” in Sherman.
I want to file a civil suit against the Mississippi John Hurt
Foundation. The address to the foundation is 520 Milton LN
Hoffman estate, Chicago, Illinois 60169. The charge I want to
file against the foundation is fraud, falsifying documents,
and possibly money laundering. I believe this foundation is
fraudulently operated to steal the estate from the rightful
heirs by claiming the heirs are in agreement to make this
estate a non-profit organization by the administrator of the
She fraudulently filed with the state of Illinois Office of
the Secretary of State that I was one of the directors of the
foundation. And that is an outright lie and a criminal
Dkt. No. 3 at 2.
of these allegations - nor any document attached to the
complaint - reflects that the named defendant resides in
Sherman, that a substantial part of the events or omissions
giving rise to Hurt's claims occurred in Sherman, or that
the named defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in
Sherman. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Court may not therefore transfer this action to Sherman under
Section 1406(a). Cf. Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S.
Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 56 (2013)
(“When venue is challenged, the court must determine
whether the case falls within one of the three categories set
out in § 1391(b). If it does, venue is proper; if it
does not, venue is improper, and the case must be dismissed
or transferred under § 1406(a).”); Howmedica
Osteonics Corp. v. DJO Global, Inc., Civ. A. No.
16-2330, 2017 WL 1136671, at *5 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2017)
(“Because New Jersey is not a proper venue under any of
the Section 1391(b) categories and transferring a case is the
preferred remedy, the Court will transfer this matter to the
Southern District of Indiana pursuant to Section 1406(a). A
district court may transfer a case to a district in which it
could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). As noted,
the Southern District of Indiana is a proper venue under
Section 1391(b)(2). Moreover, the Southern District of
Indiana clearly has personal jurisdiction over the Employee
Defendants and Supernaw as there is no dispute that they live
and work there. DJO also acknowledges that it is subject to
specific personal jurisdiction in light of the
allegations that it specifically targeted Stryker's
Indiana sales representatives and business. In addition, all
of the Defendants, including DJO, consent to transferring
this case to the Southern District of Indiana.”
(citation and footnotes omitted; emphasis in original)).
Court should deny Plaintiff Sterling Conley Hurt's motion
to transfer venue to the Sherman Division of the Eastern
District of Texas [Dkt. No. 7] and dismiss this action
without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) for the
reasons stated in the findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendation entered July 22, 2019.
of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be
served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any
party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In order to
be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding
or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate
judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where
the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely
incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before
the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from
appealing the factual ...