Grant v. 115th Precinct
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Grant v. 115th Precinct, Judge Swain transferred the pro se constitutional-rights case to the Eastern District of New York because events occurred in Queens.
Elizabeth Grant and the named defendants are affected because the lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether Grant may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
Elizabeth Grant, who was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, sued the 115th Precinct, several police officers, and the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals without a lawyer. She alleged that the defendants violated her federal constitutional rights during her arrest and criminal proceedings in Queens County.
The court said Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York. Because the events, the individual defendants’ work locations, the criminal proceedings, and likely evidence and witnesses were in Queens, the Eastern District appeared to be the more convenient court. The court explained that it could transfer the case even if venue was also proper in the Southern District.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and closed the case in the Southern District. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, and left any decision about whether Grant could proceed without prepaying fees in the transferred case to the Eastern District.
The detailed version
- Grant v. 115th Precinct · No. 1:25-cv-02058
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 14, 2025
Background
Elizabeth Grant filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law. She alleged that the defendants violated her federal constitutional rights in East Elmhurst, Queens County, New York. The defendants named in the complaint were the 115th Precinct of the New York City Police Department, several police officers who work at that precinct, and the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Grant alleged that the violations occurred when she was arrested at her residence in Queens County and during her criminal proceedings in Queens County Criminal Court. The opinion states that she was detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island.
Transfer analysis
Venue means the proper geographic court location for a lawsuit. The court explained that federal law permits a civil action to be brought in a district where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority.
The court found that Queens County is within the Eastern District of New York. Although the complaint did not state where the individual defendants lived, Grant alleged that the Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals resided in the Southern District, and the court stated that New York City could be considered to reside in both districts for this case. The court therefore did not decide that venue was improper in the Southern District. Instead, it applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Queens County, where the individual defendants worked and where Grant’s criminal proceedings were taking place. The court also said it was reasonable to expect that relevant documents and witnesses would be in Queens County, making the Eastern District a more convenient forum.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the case in the Southern District, and a summons was not to issue from that court. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Grant could proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide whether Grant’s constitutional-rights allegations were valid.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.