IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 vs. Case No. 2:12-cv-472 

 Judge Marbley 

 Magistrate Judge King 

CITY OF COLUMBUS, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of plaintiff’s 

Motion for a Change of Venue (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer”), Doc. 

No. 31, defendant Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority’s (“CMHA”) 

response, Doc. No. 32, and plaintiff’s reply, Doc. No. 35. Also 

before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended 

Complaint (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend”), Doc. No. 34. Defendant 

CMHA has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. For the 

reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 

I. Background 

Plaintiff filed this action against the City of Columbus, the 

CMHA, its attorney, the Mayor of Columbus, the Governor of the State 

of Ohio, and a former co-worker of plaintiff and the co-worker’s 

husband. The Complaint, Doc. No. 1-3, seeks declaratory, injunctive, 

and monetary relief in connection with the alleged wrongful denial of 

plaintiff’s application for housing provided by the CMHA. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that all defendants but the former 

co-worker and husband denied plaintiff subsidized CMHA housing to 

which she was entitled and conspired to commit housing discrimination, 

that all defendants engaged in intentional and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress, and that the former co-worker and husband realized 

“improper enjoyment of benefits (including government subsidized 

public housing and utility bill payment),” id. at p. 41, and 

improperly received representation by the Ohio Attorney General when 

plaintiff sued the former co-worker in a separate action filed by 

plaintiff against that former co-worker. See Siegler v. The Ohio 

State University, et al., 2:11-cv-170 (S.D. Ohio). The Court 

previously dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims, except those against 

defendant CMHA, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 7. 

II. Discussion 

 A. Venue 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer seeks to transfer this action to 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 

Plaintiff argues that transfer is necessary because she now resides in 

the Northern District of Ohio and she will be “inconvenienced and 

suffer[] financial injury” if she is required to continue to litigate 

this action in the Southern District of Ohio. See Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Transfer, p. 3. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of the parties 

and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may 

transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Courts interpreting § 

1404(a) must engage in a two-step analysis and determine: (1) whether 

the action might have been brought in the proposed transferee court; 

and (2) whether, considering all relevant factors, the balance of 

convenience and the interest of justice “strongly” favor transfer. 

Kay v. Nat'l City Mortg. Co., 494 F.Supp.2d 845, 849–50 (S.D. Ohio 

2007). Ultimately, the decision whether to transfer venue is 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Midwest Motor 

Supply Co., Inc. v. Kimball, 761 F.Supp. 1316, 1318 (S.D. Ohio 1991). 

 “An action ‘might have been brought’ in a transferee court if: 

(1) the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action; 

(2) venue is proper there; and (3) the defendant is amenable to 

process issuing out of the transferee court.” Sky Techs. Partners, 

LLC v. Midwest Research Inst., 125 F.Supp.2d 286, 291 (S.D. Ohio 2000) 

(citations and punctuation omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue 

is proper 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. 

 In the case presently before the Court, the Complaint does not 

allege - and plaintiff does not contend - that any defendant resides 

in the Northern District of Ohio or that a substantial portion of the 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

events or omissions giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in the 

Northern District of Ohio. See e.g., Complaint, p. 2. Accordingly, 

plaintiff could not have brought this action in the Northern District 

of Ohio because venue would be improper in that district. 

Furthermore, upon considering both the private and public interest 

factors, particularly the convenience of the parties and witnesses and 

plaintiff’s original choice to litigate in this forum, see Gulf Oil 

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947); Centerville ALF, Inc. v. 

Balanced Care Corp., 197 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1049 (S.D. Ohio 2002) 

(quoting Moses v. Bus. Card Express, Inc., 929 F.2d 1131, 1137 (6th 

Cir. 1991)), the Court concludes that the balance of convenience and 

the interest of justice do not favor transfer. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer is therefore DENIED. 

B. Motion to Amend 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is governed by Rule 15(a) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that a “court should 

freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 15(a)(2). “The thrust of Rule 15 is to reinforce the principle 

that cases should be tried on their merits rather than the 

technicalities of pleadings.” Tefft v. Seward, 689 F.2d 637, 639 (6th 

Cir. 1982) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 48 (1957)). The 

grant or denial of a request to amend a complaint is left to the broad 

discretion of the trial court. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Sargent & Lundy, 916 

F.2d 1119, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In exercising its discretion, the 

trial court may consider such factors as “undue delay, bad faith or 

dilatory motive on the part of a movant, repeated failure to cure 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5 

deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the 

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment [and] futility 

of the amendment.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

 “A proposed amendment is futile if the amendment could not 

withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Rose v. Hartford 

Underwriters Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 417, 420 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing 

Thiokol Corp. v. Dep’t of Treasury, Revenue Div., 987 F.2d 376, 382-83 

(6th Cir. 1993)). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the 

legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon 

Steel Co., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). In determining whether 

dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed 

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded 

facts must be accepted as true. See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96 

F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir. 1996); Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F. 

Supp. 734, 738 (S.D. Ohio 1994). The United States Supreme Court has 

explained that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be 

supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations 

in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546 

(2007). However, a plaintiff’s claim for relief “requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of 

a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. “Factual allegations 

must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level . . . .” Id. Accordingly, a complaint must be dismissed – and 

leave to amend a complaint would be futile – if the complaint does not 

plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on 

its face.” Id. at 570. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6 

 In the case presently before the Court, plaintiff’s Proposed 

Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 34-1, names as defendants the CMHA, 

National Church Residences, the City of Columbus, and the Mayor of 

Columbus. Defendant CMHA has not filed a response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Amend. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is therefore GRANTED as 

to defendant CMHA. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2(a)(2). However, as to 

the remaining proposed defendants named in the Proposed Amended 

Complaint, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is DENIED as futile because the 

Proposed Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against those 

proposed defendants upon which relief can be granted. Significantly, 

the Proposed Amended Complaint contains no facts in support of any 

claim against the City or its Mayor. The Proposed Amended Complaint

also fails to allege that National Church Residences took any action 

in this matter related to plaintiff. The Proposed Amended Complaint

does allege that plaintiff’s former co-worker and husband are former 

tenants of National Church Residences and that National Church 

Residences refused to comply with a public records request sent by 

plaintiff. Proposed Amended Complaint, pp. 6-7, 9-11, 18. However, 

as a private “501(C)(3) corporation,” see id. at p. 3, National Church 

Residences is not subject to public records requests, see 5 U.S.C. § 

552 (Freedom of Information Act); O.R.C. § 149.43, et. seq., (Ohio 

Public Records Act), and the allegations related to plaintiff’s former 

co-worker and husband are simply insufficient to state a cause of 

action. Accordingly, the Proposed Amended Complaint fails to state a 

colorable claim against National Church Residences, the City of 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7 

Columbus, and the Mayor of Columbus; to grant leave to amend the 

complaint to assert claims against these defendants would be futile. 

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Transfer, Doc. No. 31, is DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 34, is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part. As to defendant CMHA, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is 

GRANTED. As to all other defendants, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is 

DENIED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to file the tendered Amended Complaint, 

which is attached to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, Doc. No. 34. 

August 9, 2013 s/Norah McCann King_______ 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00472-JLG-NMK Doc #: 38 Filed: 08/09/13 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>