Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Filed: Patrick Fisher
Filed: Patrick Fisher
APR 27 2004
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SHANNON YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE GOVERNMENT OF
OKLAHOMA; STEPHEN P. GRAY,
individually; FORREST DAVID
NELSON, individually; KELLY
BURKE, individually; RUDY
BRIGGS, individually; BRUCE G.
SEWELL, individually; JOHN DOES,
1-12; JANE DOES, 1-12,
No. 03-2180
District of New Mexico
(D.C. No. CIV-02-1577 LH/RHS)
Defendants - Appellees.
of this appeal.
New Mexico against the Government of Oklahoma and the judges, officers and
attorneys involved in the divorce and contempt proceedings, alleging various
-2-
See, e.g. , United States v. Distefano , 279 F.3d 1241, 1244 (10th Cir. 2002).
Construed broadly, Mr. Young presents two arguments on appeal: first, that the
district court erred when it found it lacked personal jurisdiction over the
defendants; and second, that it abused its discretion in deciding to dismiss the
case without prejudice rather than transferring the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1631. Neither argument has merit.
1. Personal Jurisdiction
We review the district courts determination of personal jurisdiction
novo. OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada
de
(10th Cir. 1998). The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging and proving facts that
support the exercise of personal jurisdiction, though in the absence of an
evidentiary hearing, he need only make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction.
1263, 1271 (10th Cir. 2002). First, the defendant must be subject[] to the
jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district
court is located. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A). Second, the exercise of personal
jurisdiction must not offend the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Botefuhr , 309 F.3d at 1271 (quoting
Towne , 46 F.3d 1071, 1074 (10th Cir. 1995)). Mr. Young has failed to allege
facts sufficient to meet either requirement.
New Mexico applies a three part test to determine whether personal
jurisdiction lies, asking: (1) whether the defendant committed an act or omission
specifically set forth in the statute; (2) whether the cause of action arises out of
that act or omission; and (3) whether the defendant has sufficient minimum
contacts to satisfy due process concerns. Tercero v. Roman Catholic Diocese of
Norwich, Connecticut , 48 P.3d 50, 54 (N.M. 2002). The statute has been
interpreted to extend[] the jurisdictional reach of New Mexico as far as
constitutionally permissible. Thus, the personal jurisdiction inquiry largely
collapses into the constitutional due process analysis.
U.S. 310, 319-20 (1945). It is essential in each case that there be some act by
-4-
-5-
See Miller v. Hambrick , 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990) (Although
Miller did not move the district court to transfer the case, we have held that [a]
motion to transfer is unnecessary because of the mandatory cast of section 1631's
instructions. (quoting
-6-
Mr. Young argues the word shall in Section 1631 mandates transfer in all
cases where a lack of jurisdiction can be cured by transfer. However, this Court
and others have interpreted the phrase if it is in the interest of justice to confer
discretion on the trial court in making a decision to transfer an action or to
dismiss without prejudice.
Seiter , 173 F.3d 609, 610 (7th Cir. 1999). We therefore review the district courts
failure to transfer the case under Section 1631 for an abuse of discretion.
e.g. , Paul v. I.N.S. , 348 F.3d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 2003);
See,
Davis & Michael, P.C. , 90 F.3d 1523, 1543 (10th Cir. 1996).
Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interests of
justice include whether the claims would be barred by a statute of limitations if
filed anew in the proper forum,
Cir. 2000) (citing Coleman v. United States , 106 F.3d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1997)),
whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit,
(citing Phillips , 173 F.3d at 610), and whether the claims were filed in good faith
or if, on the other hand, it was clear at the time of filing that the court lacked the
requisite jurisdiction,
justice to transfer where a plaintiff either realized or should have realized that the
forum in which he or she filed was improper.).
-7-
lack of merit outweighed the fact that claims would be time-barred if not
transferred).
First, Mr. Youngs complaint is unlikely to have merit.
See id . at 1150
Phillips ,
the parties he attempted to sue had little or no contact with the state of New
Mexico and that Oklahoma would be the proper forum.
242 F.3d 389, 2000 WL 1853994, *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 19, 2000) (Keaveneys pro
-8-
se status does not excuse his obligation to comply with the procedural rules,
including jurisdiction . . . . This is not a case in which jurisdiction . . . turned on
the existence of some elusive fact about which Keaveney made an erroneous
guess. Rather, the error here is obvious (internal citations and quotation marks
omitted)). Mr. Youngs failure to file his complaint in the proper forum cannot
be excused as a good faith technical error, and therefore this second factor does
not militate in favor of transfer.
Considering these factors in combination, we find transfer would not be in
the interests of justice, and that therefore the district court did not err or abuse its
discretion in ordering dismissal rather than transferring the case to the District of
Oklahoma.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico, dismissing Appellant's case for lack of personal jurisdiction over the
Defendants, is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court,
Michael W. McConnell
Circuit Judge
-9-