Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 18, 2025

Dejesus v. NYC Human Resource Administration

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-03161
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In DeJesus v. NYC Human Resource Administration, Chief Judge Swain transferred the pro se action to the Eastern District of New York because Queens was the proper, more convenient venue.

Who this affects

Alex DeJesus and the defendants named in the action are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York; the transferee court will decide whether DeJesus may proceed without prepaying fees.

What happened

In DeJesus v. NYC Human Resource Administration, Alex DeJesus brought a self-represented lawsuit against the New York City Human Resources Administration, Molly Wasow Park, and Mayssa Choubah. He asserted constitutional, disability, and state-law claims based on events that allegedly occurred in Long Island City, Queens County.

The Southern District of New York determined that Queens County is in the Eastern District of New York and that the Eastern District was a proper venue for the claims. Because the events allegedly occurred there, the court concluded that relevant witnesses and documents would likely be there and transferred the action to that district.

Chief Judge Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the Eastern District of New York. The order closes the action in the Southern District, leaves the decision about proceeding without prepaying fees to the transferee court, and denies self-represented fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dejesus v. NYC Human Resource Administration · No. 1:25-cv-03161
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 18, 2025

Background

Alex DeJesus, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA), Molly Wasow Park, and Mayssa Choubah. The opinion says he asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. He sought an injunction and possibly damages. The court also noted that the complaint lacked a signature page and that the application to proceed without prepaying filing fees lacked its second signature page.

Venue and Transfer

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the general federal venue statute. It explained that HRA, as an agency of New York City, resides in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York for venue purposes. The court said it was unclear whether the Southern District was a proper venue based on the individual defendants' residences because the complaint did not specify where Mayssa Choubah resided.

The court found that the alleged events occurred in Long Island City, Queens County. Because Queens County is within the Eastern District of New York, that district was a proper venue under the provision allowing a case to be brought where a substantial part of the events occurred.

The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that transfer was appropriate because the alleged events occurred in Queens and relevant witnesses and documents could reasonably be located there. The court therefore transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York.

Order

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The decision about whether DeJesus may continue without prepaying fees was left to the transferee court. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the action in that court. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not decide the underlying constitutional, disability, or state-law claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.