Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Buckler v. Austin — Transferred to W.D. Tex. for improper venue

Reported / Citable

Case
Philip Traugott Buckler v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Judge
Lee H. Rosenthal
Date Decided
August 2, 2023
Docket No.
H-23-1122
Topics
Venue; Federal officers; Military; Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Background

Maj. Philip Traugott Buckler sued the Secretary of Defense and other federal defendants over Department of Defense masking rules. The defendants moved to transfer the suit to the Western District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), arguing that venue in the Southern District of Texas was improper.

Buckler had previously filed a similar action in the Western District of Texas against the same defendants concerning the same masking rules. He voluntarily dismissed that case after the court admonished him for not serving the defendants as directed. In the earlier complaint, Buckler alleged that his home of record and the original alleged violations were in El Paso County.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Lee H. Rosenthal held that venue was improper in the Southern District of Texas and granted transfer under § 1406(a). Because the defendants were federal officers or employees sued in their official capacities, venue was governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1).

Buckler did not establish that any defendant resided in the district, that a substantial part of the relevant events or omissions occurred there, or that he resided there. His allegations that he had family in Houston and intended eventually to return there to practice dentistry did not satisfy the statute. The court rejected his reliance on U.S. Navy Seals 1–26 v. Biden because that Fifth Circuit decision did not decide venue.

Key Takeaways

  • Section 1391(e)(1) controls venue for official-capacity suits against federal officers.
  • Connections such as family ties and a future intent to return to a district do not establish venue under § 1391(e)(1).
  • Because venue was improper, the court transferred rather than dismissed the action and denied the requested stay as moot.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that a challenge to a federal policy with nationwide effects still must satisfy the federal-officer venue statute. Plaintiffs cannot rely on the broad reach of the challenged policy to bypass the statute’s district-specific residence and events requirements.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top