Jr. v. The Supervising Officer That Directed Officers to Arrest the on Jan. 11
Lurch Jr. v. The Supervising Officer That Directed Officers to Arrest the on Jan. 11, 2023 as well as Officers that Assisted
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00819
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lurch Jr. v. Supervising Officer, Judge Swain transferred the false-arrest lawsuit to the Eastern District of New York because the alleged events occurred in Queens County.
Robert Derek Lurch Jr., the named supervising and assisting officers, and the City of New York. The case will proceed, if at all, in the Eastern District of New York, where pending motions will be decided.
What happened
Robert Derek Lurch Jr. v. The Supervising Officer That Directed Officers to Arrest the Plaintiff on Jan. 11, 2023 as Well as Officers That Assisted and City of New York concerns a complaint alleging that Lurch was falsely arrested in Jackson Heights, Queens County. Lurch filed the case without a lawyer under a civil-rights law, naming the supervising officer, assisting officers, and the City of New York as defendants.
The court said it was unclear where the individual defendants lived, but the alleged events occurred in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. The court also said that documents and witnesses were likely to be there, making that district more convenient.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Pending motions will be decided by that court, no summons will issue from the Southern District of New York, and the case was closed there. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Jr. v. The Supervising Officer That Directed Officers to Arrest the on Jan. 11 · No. 1:25-cv-00819
- Laura Swain
- May 12, 2025
Background
Robert Derek Lurch Jr. filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was falsely arrested in Jackson Heights in Queens County, New York. He proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The defendants were identified as the supervising officer who directed the arrest and the officers who assisted, along with the City of New York.
Venue analysis
The court explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Lurch did not state where the individual defendants reside. The court therefore said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of New York based on the individual defendants’ residences. The court stated, however, that venue would be proper in the Eastern District because the alleged events occurred in Jackson Heights, Queens County. It also stated that both districts would be proper venues for the claims against the City of New York.
Transfer ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Judge Laura Taylor Swain concluded that transfer was appropriate because the events occurred in Jackson Heights and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be located in Queens County. The court therefore ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Disposition
The Clerk was directed to transfer the action. The transferee court will decide all pending motions. A summons will not issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order transferred the case without deciding whether Lurch was falsely arrested or whether the defendants were liable.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.