UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ MARYANN WATKINS, trustee of Madeleine Watkins and Marc Watkins Irrevocable Living Trust, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY CALIFORNIA; KATHRYN BARGER, individually and in her official capacity as Los Angeles County Fifth District Supervisor; RODRIGO CASTRO-SILVA, individually and in his official capacity as Los Angeles County California Counsel; MARY C WICKHAM, individually and in her official capacity as Los Angeles County California Counsel; NICK DUVALLY, individually and in his official capacity as Los Angeles California County Fire; JIM BAILEY, indi vidually and in his official capacity as Los Angeles County California Senior Engineer Fire; ROSA LINDA CRUZ, individually and in her official capacity as Los Angeles California Counsel, Defendants - Appellees. No. 21-8063 (D.C. No. 0:20- CV-00246-SWS) (D. Wyo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 9, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 12 ________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , BRISCOE , and ROSSMAN , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Plaintiff Maryann Watkins, as trustee on behalf of the Madeleine Watkins and Marc Watkins Irrevocable Living Trust (“th e Trust”), sued Los Angeles County and several Los Angeles officials (collectively, “Los Angele s”) for alleged civil rights violations under 42 U.S. C. § 1983. She filed the lawsu it in the District of Wyoming, but the district court determ ined there was no factual or legal basis for venue in Wyoming. The district court declined to exercise its disc retion to transfer the action to another venue under 28 U.S.C. § 140 6(a), and dismissed the case without prejudice. Ms. Watkins has appealed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. Background The Trust owns property in Los Ange les County, Californ ia. Ms. Watkins alleged that Los Angeles violat ed the Trust’s civil rights wh en it denied the necessary permits for a manufactured home to be placed on the property. She filed the lawsuit in Wyoming federal district court because , she says, the Trust was created under Wyoming law. Ms. Watkins sued in her capacity as a truste e of the Trust, but she is not an attorney.

estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 23 After the defendants filed answers, the di strict court issued an order dismissing Ms. Watkins’s claims without prejudice. The district court held as a matter of law that the lawsuit was brought in an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The district court declined to ex ercise its discretion to transf er the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) because: (1) as a non-attorney, Ms. Watkins is not authorized to represent the Trust and therefore transferring the case would not serve the in terests of justice; and (2) there appeared to be no statute of limitations that would prevent refiling the case in the proper venue. 1 Ms. Watkins filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. This appeal followed. II. Analysis Ms. Watkins argues on appeal that the district court erred in declining to transfer this case to the Central District of Californi a. Section 1406(a) directs that the district court “shall dismiss” a case fi led in an inappropriat e venue unless it finds the interests of justice would be served by a transfer. Where, as here, the district court finds a transfer woul d not serve the interests of justice, we review its conclusion for an abuse of discretion. See Ballesteros v. Ashcroft , 452 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2006) (“In civil cases, the question of whether . . . to dismiss or transfer an action filed in an improper venue is within the district court’s sound discretion and reviewed for abuse of di scretion only.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

1 Ms. Watkins has not challenged this se cond aspect of the district court’s decision. Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 34 We find no abuse of discretion in this case. The Supreme C ourt has held that artificial entities may be represented in court only through licensed counsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council , 506 U.S. 194, 201- 02 (1993). The district cour t therefore correctly noted th at Ms. Watkins, who is not an attorney, cannot represent the Trust. Accordingly, the district court was well within its discretion to hold it was not in the interests of justice to transfer the case to California because a transfer would allow Ms . Watkins to persist in her efforts to represent the Trust. Ms. Watkins argues the district court nonetheless should have transferred the case. First, she claims she submitted to the district court a proposed amended complaint asserting claims personal to her rather than on behalf of the Trust. However, we find no indication in the r ecord that Ms. Watkins ever submitted any such amended complaint to th e district court. Although Ms. Watkins has attached a proposed amended complaint to her Opening Brief, we dec line to consider it because “the only proper function of a court of appeal s is to review the decision below on the basis of the record that was made before the district court.” Allen v. Minnstar, Inc. , 8 F.3d 1470, 1474 (10th Cir. 1993) (i nternal quotation marks omitted). Second, Ms. Watkins argues the distri ct court should ha ve exercised its discretion to transfer the case because of the cost s involved in fili ng a new lawsuit in the Central District of Calif ornia, including filing fees and the expense of serving summons. Time and expense ar e appropriate considerations in assessing whether the interests of justi ce would be served by a transf er under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 45 generally 14D Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3827 n.35 (2013). We note, however, that the cost of filing a new civil matter in the Central District of California is $350, while the filing fee for an appeal in this circuit is $505. 2 And Defendants note that Ms. Watk ins has never contacted Defendants’ counsel to discuss service of summons. In any event, co st considerations in the present circumstances do not outweigh the fact that transferring th e case would have perpetuated Ms. Watkins’s una uthorized practice of law.
III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we affirm th e district court’s order dismissing the action without prejudice and declining to transf er this case to the Central District of California.

Entered for the Court

Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge

2 Compare https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/site s/default/files/forms/G-072/G72.pdf with https://www.ca10.uscourts. gov/reference/filing-fees

. Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 5