Velez v. Hochul

Background

Michael-Tony Velez, who is incarcerated at Clinton Correctional Facility and is representing himself, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state actors for violating federal rights. He alleged that defendants violated his rights through repeated denials of parole and through conditions of confinement, including an assignment to work for Corcraft at Clinton Correctional Facility.

The defendants named in the complaint included New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello, parole officials, and individuals connected to Corcraft. Velez provided Albany business addresses for all defendants except Paredez, for whom he provided a New York, New York, business address.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that federal law permits a civil case to be filed 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 complaint did not allege that events giving rise to the claims occurred in the Southern District of New York. Instead, the alleged parole-related events involved individuals in Albany, and the confinement and work-assignment claims arose at Clinton Correctional Facility in Clinton County. Both Albany County and Clinton County are in the Northern District of New York.

The court assumed, without deciding, that venue might be proper in the Southern District because Paredez had a New York, New York, business address. Even so, it concluded that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was appropriate. That law permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The court relied on the location of the underlying events, the employment locations of all but one defendant, and the likely location of relevant documents and witnesses. It also noted that the Northern District of New York had previously addressed similar parole-denial claims in a prior related proceeding, No. 9:22-CV-0362 (N.D.N.Y.).

Other Matters and Disposition

A footnote explained that Velez also sought money damages, injunctive relief, and release from custody. The court stated that a person generally cannot use a Section 1983 action to challenge the validity or duration of custody or obtain release; that type of relief must be sought through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court declined to treat the complaint as such a petition because Velez did not allege facts showing that he had completed the required state remedies for challenging the parole denial.

The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It stated that the receiving court would decide whether Velez could proceed without prepaying fees, directed that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York, and stated that the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain did not decide the merits of Velez’s claims.