Stinson v. Lopez

Background

Richard Stinson, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Thomson, Illinois, filed this lawsuit without a lawyer. He seeks damages from Officer J. Lopez and Lieutenant Motska, whom he alleges violated his federal constitutional rights while he was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. The opinion says he appears to sue both defendants in their individual and official capacities.

The court construed the complaint as asserting claims under Bivens, a legal framework that can allow damages claims against certain federal officers for constitutional violations, and under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal statute allowing certain tort claims against the United States. The opinion does not decide whether those claims are legally valid.

Venue and Transfer

For the constitutional claims, the court considered the federal venue rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the Federal Tort Claims Act claims, it considered 28 U.S.C. § 1402(b), which generally permits suit where the plaintiff resides or where the complained-of act or omission occurred.

Stinson did not allege where he or either defendant resides. The court therefore said it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue based on the parties’ residences. Stinson did allege, however, that the events occurred at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The court determined that Brooklyn is in Kings County, within the Eastern District of New York, and that the Eastern District was a proper venue based on where the events occurred.

The court also applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that transfer appeared appropriate because the alleged events occurred in Kings County, the defendants were alleged to be assigned to the Brooklyn detention center, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be located there.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It did not dismiss the claims or decide their merits. The Southern District of New York closed the action in that court, directed that summonses would not issue there, and left the question of whether Stinson could proceed without prepaying fees to the transferee court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.