Chavez v. HUD "Portability" Does 1-9

Background

Juan Chavez brought this action without a lawyer and invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The complaint sought reinstatement of Section 8 assistance, damages, and equitable and injunctive relief. Chavez appeared to assert claims under 24 C.F.R. § 982.302 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court construed the action as also asserting claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act. Chavez named “HUD ‘Portability’ Does 1-9, et al.,” which the court construed as referring to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Chavez alleged that a public housing agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation required by Section 504, despite his request, causing him hardship.

Venue analysis

For the Rehabilitation Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which permits an action against a federal agency in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events or omissions occurred, where relevant property is located, or, when no real property is involved, where the plaintiff resides. The court stated that the alleged events appeared to have occurred in Los Angeles, that any relevant real property appeared to be there, and that Chavez appeared to reside there. Los Angeles is within the Central District of California.

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b) to the Federal Tort Claims Act claims. That statute requires those claims to be brought where the plaintiff resides or where the complained-of act or omission occurred. The court concluded that the Central District of California was the only proper venue for those claims.

The court also considered transfer for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It determined that transfer of the Rehabilitation Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims was appropriate because the alleged events and any relevant property appeared to be in Los Angeles, Chavez appeared to reside there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be located there.

Order

The court transferred the Rehabilitation Act and Administrative Procedure Act claims under § 1404(a), and the Federal Tort Claims Act claims under § 1406(a), to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Clerk was directed to transfer the entire action. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Chavez could proceed without prepaying fees. A summons was not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the action in that court.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Chavez’s underlying claims.