Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2025

Lewis v. Hochul

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02240
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Hochul, Judge Swain transferred the pro se plaintiff’s case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District.

Who this affects

Scott Phillip Lewis’s action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of New York. The defendants remain parties to the transferred action, and the transferee court will decide whether Lewis may proceed without prepaying fees.

What happened

In Lewis v. Hochul, Scott Phillip Lewis, representing himself, sued Kathy Hochul and other defendants over alleged due-process violations connected to proceedings in the New York Court of Claims.

The court ruled that the Southern District of New York was not the proper or most convenient location. The alleged events occurred in Albany, Franklin, and Essex Counties, which are in the Northern District, and the court said relevant witnesses and documents would likely be there. It therefore transferred the action to the Northern District of New York rather than deciding whether Lewis’s claims were legally valid.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the transfer, closed the case in the Southern District, and stated that the transferee court would decide whether Lewis could continue without paying filing fees. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lewis v. Hochul · No. 1:25-cv-02240
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 23, 2025

Background

Scott Phillip Lewis brought the action without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He alleged violations of his constitutional right to due process in connection with proceedings in the New York Court of Claims. The defendants named in the opinion are Kathy Hochul, Letitia James, Laurence Soronen, Harris Dague, Glenn King, and Melissa.

Venue analysis

Lewis alleged that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because all defendants lived in New York State and Letitia James lived in Brooklyn. The court explained that Brooklyn is in Kings County, within the Eastern District of New York, and that the complaint did not show that any other defendant lived in the Southern District.

The court also concluded that the claims appeared to arise from events in Albany and Franklin Counties and from proceedings conducted by telephone from Lewis’s home in Essex County. Those counties are in the Northern District of New York. The court therefore determined that venue was proper there based on where the events occurred.

The court further applied the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It found that Lewis did not live in the Southern District, the operative events did not occur there, and relevant documents and witnesses would reasonably be expected to be in the Northern District. The court also stated that Lewis appeared to have selected the Southern District because he mistakenly believed Brooklyn was located there.

Disposition

The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The Clerk of Court was directed to carry out the transfer, and the case was closed in the Southern District of New York. The opinion states that the transferee court would decide whether Lewis could proceed without prepaying fees, and that no summons would issue from the Southern District. The court did not decide the merits of Lewis’s constitutional claims.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

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.