Rivers v. Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04283
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rivers v. Doe, Chief Judge Swain transferred Enzo Rivers’s civil-rights case from Manhattan to Brooklyn’s federal district.
Enzo Rivers and the defendants named in his action are affected by the transfer from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court will decide whether Rivers may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Rivers v. Doe, Enzo Rivers, who is detained on Rikers Island and represents himself, brought a federal civil-rights lawsuit against several defendants, including members of a white supremacy group and unidentified people. He alleged that the events occurred in Brooklyn.
The court said it could not determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because the defendants’ residences were unknown. But venue was also proper in the Eastern District of New York because the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn. The court concluded that the Eastern District appeared more convenient because the relevant witnesses and documents were likely there.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of New York under the federal transfer statute. The Southern District case was closed, no summons would issue there, and the transferee court would decide whether Rivers could proceed without paying filing fees. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Rivers v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-04283
- Laura Swain
- May 27, 2025
Background
Enzo Rivers, a detained plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that several defendants—including members of a white supremacy group and several people identified as John Doe—violated his rights in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Rivers did not plead where any defendant resided. He also had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application and prisoner authorization to proceed without prepaying fees.
Venue analysis
The court explained that federal venue generally may be proper 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. Because the defendants’ residences were unknown, the court could not determine whether venue was proper under the residence-based provision in either the Southern or Eastern District of New York.
The court nevertheless found that venue would be proper in the Eastern District under the provision covering the district where a substantial part of the events occurred, because the alleged events took place in Brooklyn. The court also assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that venue might be proper in the Southern District.
Transfer and disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when doing so serves convenience and the interests of justice. The court determined that transfer was appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Brooklyn and the relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.
The court ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Rivers could proceed without prepaying fees. The Southern District court directed that no summons issue, closed the case in that court, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith; it therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order transferred the case without deciding the merits of Rivers’s civil-rights allegations.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.