Hill v. The New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social…
Hill v. The New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hill v. Human Resources Administration, Judge Swain transferred Kahlil K. Hill’s excessive-force case to the Eastern District of New York for convenience.
Kahlil K. Hill’s case will proceed, if at all, in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York. The Eastern District will decide whether Hill may proceed without prepaying fees. The order also affects the New York City Human Resources Administration, Sergeant Chanderdat, and Police Officer Selles as the named defendants, but it does not resolve the excessive-force allegations.
What happened
In Hill v. The New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services, Kahlil K. Hill, representing themself, sued the New York City Human Resources Administration, Sergeant Chanderdat, and Police Officer Selles under a federal civil-rights law. Hill alleged that the officers used excessive force while detaining them at an HRA office in Jamaica, Queens.
The court said venue was proper in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, but the events occurred in Queens County, where Hill resides and where relevant witnesses and documents were reasonably expected to be located. The court also noted that the HRA itself is not a suable entity, while assuming for purposes of the transfer that Hill intended to sue New York City.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case was closed in the Southern District, no summons would issue there, and the transferee court would decide whether Hill could proceed without prepaying fees. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hill v. The New York City Human Resources Administration Department of Social… · No. 1:25-cv-00497
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Kahlil K. Hill, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by state or local officials. Hill alleged that the defendants violated their rights at an office of the New York City Human Resources Administration in Jamaica, Queens County. The complaint identified the HRA, HRA Sergeant Chanderdat, and HRA Police Officer Selles as defendants and alleged that the individual officers used excessive force while detaining Hill.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that federal law permits a civil action to be filed in a district where the defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. The court noted that Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York. It concluded that venue would be proper in both the Southern and Eastern Districts under the residence provision, assuming that Hill intended to assert claims against New York City and that the individual defendants resided in New York State. Venue would also be proper in the Eastern District because the events underlying the claims occurred there.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the events occurred in Queens County, Hill resides there, and relevant documents and witnesses were reasonably expected to be located there. The court determined that the Eastern District of New York appeared to be the more convenient forum.
The court also stated that the HRA is not an entity that can be sued. For purposes of deciding the transfer, however, the court assumed that Hill had asserted claims against the City of New York.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, the case was closed in the Southern District of New York, and no summons was to issue from that court. The Eastern District would decide whether Hill could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Hill’s excessive-force allegations were legally or factually valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.