QUESTION 1
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a federal
district court dismisses an action with prejudice for improper venue under Rule
12(b)(3), without first establishing proper divisional venue as required by 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b), as modified by E.D. Va. Loe. Civ. R. 7(J), and after acknowledging that all
operative facts occurred in a different division of the Eastern District of Virginia.

QUESTION 2
Whether a federal judge acts ultra vires—and therefore outside the scope of judicial
immunity —by simultaneously disclaiming jurisdiction over a case while issuing a final
merits ruling, in contravention of the jurisdiction-first principle mandated by Steel Co.
v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), and despite the statutory
command under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to either transfer or dismiss without
prejudice when venue is improper.

QUESTION 3
Whether a district court may dismiss a case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(3) for
improper venue, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) 's requirement that cases filed in
the wrong district or division "shall " be either dismissed without prejudice or
transferred "in the interest of justice " to a division or district in which the action could
have been brought, as applied in Multiscaff Ltd. v. APTIM Fed. Servs., LLC, 2023 WL
6541846 (E.D. Va. 2023), and Woodv. Barnett, Inc., 648 F. Supp. 936 (E.D. Va. 1986).

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated when a federal district court dismisses an action with prejudice for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), without first establishing proper divisional venue as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)