Cataldo v. Warren County Court of Common Pleas

Background

Jason Cataldo filed the case without a lawyer and said he was homeless. He described the case partly as a petition seeking relief from unlawful custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and partly as a civil action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He sued the Warren County Court of Common Pleas and alleged that his rights were violated in Sugar Grove, Warren County, Pennsylvania, during an arrest and detention in March 2010. He also alleged deprivation of property and denial of a fair trial.

Custody claim

The court stated that Cataldo did not allege that he was currently in custody under a state-court conviction. Instead, he alleged that he was homeless, “on the run,” and “in hiding.” The court therefore said that relief through a custody challenge did not appear available because he was no longer in custody. The court also noted that, even if he were considered in custody, the filing did not suggest that he was convicted or sentenced in the relevant district or confined in the Southern District of New York when he filed the case. The court construed the action as asserting claims for damages under Section 1983.

Venue

Venue rules determine the federal district where a civil case may be filed. The court explained that venue could be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. Cataldo alleged that the events occurred in Warren County, Pennsylvania, and the only named respondent was also located there. The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York and that the claims could be brought in the Western District of Pennsylvania, which includes Warren County.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transfer serves the interests of justice. Judge Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The order states that the New York court’s case was closed and that the receiving court would decide whether Cataldo could proceed without paying filing fees. No summons was to issue from the New York court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The order transferred the case; it did not decide whether Cataldo’s arrest, detention, property deprivation, or trial violated his rights.