IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JAIME REBORN, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-548-O-BP

 §

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, § 

 §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed June 5, 2023. ECF No. 5. This 

case was automatically referred to the undersigned under Special Order 3. ECF No. 3. After 

reviewing the pleading and applicable legal authorities, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that 

United States District Judge Reed O’Connor TRANSFER this case to the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

Venue in a civil action such as this one 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.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The Court may transfer any civil action to a more convenient forum where it

could have been filed originally “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

justice,” id. § 1404(a); see also Hardwick v. Brinson, 523 F.2d 798, 800 n.2 (5th Cir. 1975), or it

may transfer a case filed in the wrong district or division “to any district or division in which it 

Case 4:23-cv-00613-ALM-AGD Document 7 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 73
2

could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A district court may raise the issue of venue sua 

sponte. See Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Empty Barge 

Lines II, Inc. v. Dredge Leonard Fisher, 441 F. Supp. 2d 786, 789 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (collecting 

cases).

Among the relevant considerations for determining whether transfer is in the interest of 

justice, as opposed to dismissal when a case is brought in the improper venue, courts examine the 

plaintiff's reasons for filing suit in the improper district in the first place and ask whether the 

“plaintiff's belief that venue was proper was in good faith and reasonable.” Seville v. Maersk Line,

Ltd., 53 F.4th 890, 894 (5th Cir. 2022). Here, pro se Plaintiff Jaime Reborn (“Reborn”) sues the 

University of North Texas (“UNT”), a public university located in Denton, Texas. ECF No. 5 at 

1. UNT “operates its main campus” in Denton. Id. at 2. Reborn alleges that UNT discriminated 

against him because of his disability while obtaining an online PhD from the university. Id. at 1. 

Reborn believed that a suit against a defendant located in Denton would be within this 

Court’s jurisdiction because “[t]he United States District Courts for the Northern District of Texas 

has jurisdiction over the participants and issue(s) in dispute in this petition.” ECF No. 5 at 2. 

However, this is incorrect. The Court notes that the city of Denton is in Denton County, Texas, 

which is located within the Sherman Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(c)(3). The Court further notes that although UNT has a 

substantial presence at its Health Science Center located in Fort Worth, it conducts its 

administrative and executive functions in Denton. Likewise, the administrators, educators, and 

others associated with UNT mentioned in Reborn’s Amended Complaint appear to be located in 

Denton, not Fort Worth. Thus, although Reborn apparently resides in Tarrant County, which is 

located in the Fort Worth Division of the Court, UNT and the persons with knowledge of facts 

Case 4:23-cv-00613-ALM-AGD Document 7 Filed 06/06/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 74
3

relevant to Reborn’s claims in this case are located in the Sherman Division of the Eastern District 

of Texas.

Therefore, because venue is improper in this Court, there is no indication that Reborn filed 

his case here in bad faith, and transfer of venue is appropriate for the convenience of the parties 

and witnesses and in the interests of justice, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge 

O’Connor TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas, Sherman Division.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with 

a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. 

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual 

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district 

court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 

1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on June 6, 2023.

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:23-cv-00613-ALM-AGD Document 7 Filed 06/06/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 75