Reeves v. Bondi

Background

Michael Reeves, appearing without a lawyer, labeled his initial filing a petition for a court order concerning detention. The court explained that such a petition generally challenges a person’s current custody, but Reeves did not allege that he was in custody. Instead, he alleged that federal officials were illegally surveilling him, which he called his “unusual detention.” The relief he appeared to seek was an end to that surveillance.

Reeves sued Pam Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General and head of the Department of Justice; Kash Patel, in his official capacity as FBI Director; and Tulsi Gabbard, in her official capacity as Director of National Intelligence. The court treated Reeves’s later submissions as supplements to his initial filing.

Venue

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1), which governs venue for civil actions against federal officials sued in their official capacities. Under that provision, such an action may generally be brought where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or, when real property is not involved, where the plaintiff resides.

Reeves did not state where Bondi, Patel, or Gabbard resided, so the court could not determine whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue based on the defendants’ residences. Reeves did allege that the surveillance occurred, in substantial part or entirely, while he was in or around his residence in Brooklyn, Kings County. Brooklyn is in the Eastern District of New York. Although Reeves also alleged that events connected to his claimed “unusual detention” occurred in the Southern District, the court found that he provided little or no factual support for those allegations.

Because Reeves resides in Brooklyn and no real property appeared to be involved, the court also found that the Eastern District of New York was a proper venue under the plaintiff-residence provision of Section 1391(e)(1).

Transfer

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a case to another federal 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 considered the apparent location of the alleged events, Reeves’s residence, and the likely location of relevant documents and witnesses. It concluded that the Eastern District of New York 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 the transferee court the question whether Reeves could proceed without prepaying fees. The Southern District court ordered that summonses would not issue from that court and stated that the transfer order closed the action there. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide whether the alleged surveillance occurred or whether Reeves was entitled to an end to it.