Hennings v. Greene
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hennings v. Greene, Judge Swain transferred the pro se action to the Eastern District because Brooklyn is the relevant forum.
The transfer affects Velyn A. Hennings and the named and unidentified defendants by moving the action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether Hennings may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Hennings v. Greene, Velyn A. Hennings sued Sergeant Greene, Executive Director Pavic, and two unidentified transit officers. She alleged that the defendants violated her rights in Brooklyn, where she resides and where the defendants work.
The court explained that the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District of New York. Because the witnesses and documents were likely there, that district appeared more convenient, even though venue might also have been proper in the Southern District of New York.
Judge Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York and directed the clerk to close the Southern District case. She also stated that the transferee court would decide whether Hennings could proceed without paying filing fees, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Hennings v. Greene · No. 1:25-cv-01107
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 3, 2025
Background
Velyn A. Hennings brought this action without a lawyer, invoking federal-question jurisdiction. She alleges that Sergeant Greene, Executive Director Pavic, John Doe, and Jane Doe violated her rights in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Hennings alleges that all four defendants work at Broadway Junction Station in Brooklyn.
Venue analysis
The court discussed 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), which identifies places where a civil case may be filed. One option is a district where a defendant resides, if the statutory conditions are met. Another is a district where a substantial part of the events or omissions underlying the claims occurred.
Hennings did not allege where the defendants reside. As a result, the court said it was unclear whether venue was proper under the residence provision in either the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of New York. The court nevertheless stated that, even assuming the defendants resided in New York and at least one resided in the Southern District, venue would also be proper in the Eastern District because the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn.
The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer of a case to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court determined that transfer appeared appropriate because the events occurred in Brooklyn, Hennings resides there, the defendants are employed there, and the likely documents and witnesses are there.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed the clerk to transfer the action and stated that the transferee court would decide whether Hennings could proceed without prepaying fees. The court ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case there. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.