Covial v. Francillion
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-04817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Covial v. Francillion, Judge Bulsara transferred the false-arrest lawsuit from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York because venue appeared improper.
Brandon A. Covial and the seven named NYPD officer defendants; the case was moved from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York.
What happened
In Covial v. Francillion, Brandon A. Covial, who was representing himself, sued seven NYPD officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleged that he was falsely arrested at a Manhattan post office and possibly at a Manhattan library, and he sought money damages.
The court concluded that the case did not appear to belong in the Eastern District of New York because the alleged arrests occurred in Manhattan and the officers were alleged to work there. The court therefore directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York rather than dismiss it.
Judge Bulsara also left Covial’s request to proceed without paying filing fees for the transferee court to decide, waived the usual seven-day transfer delay, and closed the case in the Eastern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Covial v. Francillion · No. 1:24-cv-04817
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 28, 2024
Background
Brandon A. Covial filed the complaint while representing himself under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain claims against government officials. He alleged that he was falsely arrested on or about May 13, 2021, at a United States Post Office in Manhattan. The court said it was unclear, but that Covial appeared also to allege a false arrest at a public library in Manhattan. He named seven NYPD officers as defendants and requested money damages.
Venue analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal venue statute. It explained that a civil case may generally be filed where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. Because the alleged arrests occurred in Manhattan, the defendants were alleged to work as police officers in Manhattan, and Covial did not allege that the events occurred in the Eastern District of New York, the court concluded that venue did not appear proper there.
The court noted that Covial had not named New York City as a defendant; he had named seven individual NYPD officers. The court therefore determined that the Southern District of New York was the proper district because the alleged events occurred there.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong district or, when serving the interests of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The order waived the Eastern District’s usual seven-day delay for transfers and stated that the action was closed in that court.
The court reserved Covial’s request to proceed without paying filing fees for the Southern District of New York to decide. The order addressed venue and the transfer of the case; it did not decide whether Covial’s false-arrest allegations were legally or factually correct.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.