Gaylor v . US DOJ CV-05-414-PB 06/14/06
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Gregory Alan Gaylor
v. Case N o . 05-cv-414-PB
Opinion No.
2006 DNH 069
U.S. Department of Justice
O R D E R
Gregory Gaylor has filed a complaint asserting claims under
the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
et seq.
and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a et seq. The
government has moved to dismiss for lack of proper venue.
The applicable venue statutes provide in pertinent part for
venue “in the district in which the complainant resides, or has
his principal place of business, or in which the agency records
are situated, or in the District of Columbia. . . .”
(a)(4)(B); 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(5). Gaylor claims that he is a
resident of Texas1 but argues that venue is proper in this
1
Although Gaylor is incarcerated in New Hampshire, he does
not contest the government’s assertion that his incarceration in
this state does not make him a New Hampshire resident. Nor does
he challenge the government’s contention that the records he
district because New Hampshire is his principal place of
business. To support this argument, Gaylor claims that he is
“the general partner of Tejas Timber Resources Joint Venture, a
foreign joint venture registered with the New Hampshire Secretary
of State.” Pl.’s O b j . ¶ 1 . The government replies by arguing
that Gaylor has produced no evidence to demonstrate that Tejas
Timber Resources has its principal place of business in this
state. The absence of such evidence is particularly glaring, the
government argues, because Tejas Timber Resources is a foreign
partnership that has not been in good standing in New Hampshire
since 2004. I find the government’s argument persuasive.
Accordingly, I lack venue to consider Gaylor’s complaint.
Gaylor asks me to transfer his action to the Northern
District of Texas as an alternative to dismissal. The government
argues that a transfer is unwarranted because it has already
responded to Gaylor’s FOIA request. Gaylor, however, remains
dissatisfied with the government’s response. Thus, I am
unwilling to dismiss the case simply because Gaylor brought it in
the wrong district.
provides in pertinent part
seeks are located in another district.
-2-
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.”
1 7 , 720 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing legislative history
recognizing that District of Columbia courts have special
expertise in FOIA matters). Thus, it would be more efficient to
transfer the case to the District of Columbia rather than the
Northern District of Texas.
The motion to dismiss (Doc. N o . 9 ) is denied. The case
shall be transferred to the District of Columbia.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
June 1 4 , 2006
cc: Gregory Alan Gaylor, pro se
Gretchen Leah Witt, Esq.
-3-
