v.
Fawkes
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IDA SMITH, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 24-03398 (AHA) v. CAROLINE F. FAWKES, Defendant. Transfer Order Ida Smith, a candidate in the 2024 election for delegate to the House of Representatives from the Virgin Islands, sues Caroline Fawkes, the Virgin Islands’ supervisor of elections, alleging legal infirmities related to the election. Fawkes moves to dismiss the case, arguing Smith lacks a private cause of action and, alternatively, that she filed the case in the wrong place. For the reasons below, the court transfers the case to the District of the Virgin Islands. I. Background 1 The complaint alleges that when Smith ran in the 2024 election to be delegate to the House of Representatives from the Virgin Islands, Fawkes sent Smith a letter saying she was disqualified for failing to meet certain requirements. ECF No. 1 ¶ 7. Fawkes also publicly stated Smith was disqualified “for having two voters’ registration [sic].” Id. ¶ 9. It appears from the complaint that Smith’s name nonetheless appeared on the ballot after a vote by the board of elections. Id. ¶ 24.
[*2]U.S.C. § 1391. A plaintiff has the burden to establish venue. Fam v. Bank of Am. NA (USA), 236
F. Supp. 3d 397, 405 & n.1 (D.D.C. 2017) (collecting cases). If a case is filed in the wrong district, the district 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). The decision whether to dismiss or transfer “rests within the sound discretion of the district court.” Naartex Consulting
Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779, 789 (D.C. Cir. 1983). But transfer is the “standard remedy.” Nat’l
Wildlife Fed’n v. Browner, 237 F.3d 670, 674 (D.C. Cir. 2001). And that’s especially so when the plaintiff is pro se. Fam, 236 F. Supp. 3d at 408 (collecting cases).
The District of Columbia is not a proper venue for this case. The complaint does not allege the defendant, Fawkes, resides in the District; the complaint does not allege any conduct occurring in the District—Smith was a candidate in the Virgin Islands and the alleged infirmities took place
in the Virgin Islands, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 33–45; and Smith could have sued in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, where the alleged conduct occurred.
Smith argues venue is proper here because the position she ran for, delegate to the House of Representatives from the Virgin Islands, “is a federal position.” ECF No. 11 at 6. But Smith
cites no authority that this alone supports venue. And, while Smith notes that the District Court of the Virgin Islands is an Article IV court, not an Article III court, the statute authorizing transfer for improper venue authorizes transfer to the District of the Virgin Islands. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(c)
(defining “district court” to include “the District Court of Guam, the District Court for the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands” and defining “district” to include
“the territorial jurisdiction of each such court”).
[*3]Consistent with the presumption favoring transfer over dismissal and Smith’s pro se status, and in the absence of any argument that transfer would be improper, the court finds it in the interest of justice to transfer the case to the District of the Virgin Islands.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the court transfers this case to the District of the Virgin Islands. Fawkes’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 8, is denied as moot without prejudice to being refiled upon transfer.
AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge Date: October 21, 2025
[*4]