Doe v. Zheng

Background

Jane Doe filed the action without a lawyer and sought permission to proceed anonymously. She alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors, based on an alleged illegal eviction from her apartment in Queens, New York. She also alleged that approximately ten police officers assaulted her when she was arrested in her bedroom.

The named defendants were Mei Yu Zheng, whom Doe described as fraudulently acting as her landlord; Yi Hui Zou, whom Doe identified as the record title holder; the New York City Police Department’s 115th and 118th Precincts; Queens County Housing Court Judge David Bryan; Allen Popper of the Queens County Public Defender Office; and John Does 1–10.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that federal law permits a civil action 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 personal jurisdiction. Doe did not allege where the defendants reside. She did allege that the events underlying her claims occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York.

The court stated that venue was therefore proper in the Eastern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). It also noted that, even assuming venue was proper in the Southern District under the defendant-residence provision, the case could be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The court concluded that transfer appeared appropriate because the alleged events occurred in Queens, where Doe resided during the eviction and arrest; the eviction proceedings appeared to be ongoing there; and the defendants appeared to work or maintain property in Queens, where relevant documents were reasonably expected to be located. The Eastern District therefore appeared to be the more convenient forum.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It left to that court the decisions on whether Doe may proceed without prepaying fees and whether she may proceed anonymously. The Southern District court directed that no summons issue and stated that its case was closed.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order transferred the case and did not decide whether Doe’s underlying allegations or § 1983 claims were legally valid.