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, individually 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 appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially 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 doctrines 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: 1
2 

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, BRISCOE, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff Maryann Watkins, as trustee on behalf of the Madeleine Watkins and 

Marc Watkins Irrevocable Living Trust (“the Trust”), sued Los Angeles County and 

several Los Angeles officials (collectively, “Los Angeles”) for alleged civil rights 

violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She filed the lawsuit in the District of Wyoming, 

but the district court determined there was no factual or legal basis for venue in 

Wyoming. The district court declined to exercise its discretion to transfer the action 

to another venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(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 Angeles County, California. Ms. Watkins 

alleged that Los Angeles violated the Trust’s civil rights when 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 trustee of the Trust, but she is 

not an attorney. 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive 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: 2
3 

 After the defendants filed answers, the district 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 exercise its discretion to transfer 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 interests 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 California. Section 1406(a) directs that 

the district court “shall dismiss” a case filed in an inappropriate venue unless it finds 

the interests of justice would be served by a transfer. Where, as here, the district 

court finds a transfer would 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 discretion only.” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). 

1

 Ms. Watkins has not challenged this second aspect of the district court’s 

decision. 

Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 3
4 

 We find no abuse of discretion in this case. The Supreme Court 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 court therefore correctly noted that 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 record that Ms. Watkins ever submitted any 

such amended complaint to the district court. Although Ms. Watkins has attached a 

proposed amended complaint to her Opening Brief, we decline to consider it because 

“the only proper function of a court of appeals 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) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Second, Ms. Watkins argues the district court should have exercised its 

discretion to transfer the case because of the costs involved in filing a new lawsuit in 

the Central District of California, including filing fees and the expense of serving 

summons. Time and expense are appropriate considerations in assessing whether the 

interests of justice would be served by a transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). See 

Appellate Case: 21-8063 Document: 010110654595 Date Filed: 03/09/2022 Page: 4
5 

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. Watkins has never contacted Defendants’ 

counsel to discuss service of summons. In any event, cost considerations in the 

present circumstances do not outweigh the fact that transferring the case would have 

perpetuated Ms. Watkins’s unauthorized practice of law. 

III. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing the 

action without prejudice and declining to transfer this case to the Central District of 

California. 

Entered for the Court 

Veronica S. Rossman 

Circuit Judge 

2 Compare https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/sites/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