Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 4, 2025

Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-04456
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2: Judge Swain transferred the action to New Jersey because that was the proper and more convenient venue.

Who this affects

Ravel Ferrera Parra’s claims were transferred from the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The receiving court will decide his fee application, pending motions, and requested relief.

What happened

In Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2, Ravel Ferrera Parra sued Social Security Administration offices and officers, seeking court orders and damages under several federal laws. He filed the case without a lawyer in the Southern District of New York.

The court said claims challenging a Social Security benefits decision had to be filed where Ferrera Parra resides, and he alleged that he resides in New Jersey. The court also found that New Jersey was a proper venue for his claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act, and that New Jersey appeared more convenient because Ferrera Parra, many events, and likely many documents and witnesses were there.

Judge Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the entire action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New York court did not decide whether Ferrera Parra could proceed without paying fees or whether he was entitled to the requested relief; those matters were left to the receiving court. The New York case was closed, pending motions were terminated there, summonses were not issued, and the court denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2 · No. 1:25-cv-04456
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 4, 2025

Background

Ravel Ferrera Parra filed a 588-page complaint without a lawyer against the Social Security Administration’s Region 2, its Office of Hearings Operations, and “Region 2 Appeals and FOIA Officers.” He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and damages. The court construed the complaint as asserting:

- claims seeking review of a Social Security Administration decision under the Social Security Act; - claims under the Administrative Procedure Act; - claims under the Freedom of Information Act; and - damages claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Ferrera Parra also filed an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees, a motion for appointed volunteer counsel, and several other motions.

Venue for Social Security claims

The court held that claims seeking judicial review of a Social Security benefits decision under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) were filed in the wrong venue. Those claims may be brought in the federal district where the plaintiff resides or has a principal place of business, or, if neither is in a federal district, in the District of Columbia. Ferrera Parra alleged that he resides in South Bound Brook, New Jersey, which is in the District of New Jersey. He did not allege that he resides in the Southern District of New York and did not provide information about a principal place of business. The court therefore transferred the Social Security judicial-review claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Venue for the other claims

For the Administrative Procedure Act claims, the court explained that venue may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or where the plaintiff resides when real property is not involved. The court said that New Jersey was a proper venue because Ferrera Parra resided there and appeared to allege that a substantial part of the events occurred there. The court noted that New York might also be a possible venue for those claims.

For the Freedom of Information Act claims, the court said venue may be proper where the complainant resides, where the complainant has a principal place of business, where the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia. New Jersey was a proper venue because Ferrera Parra resided there, and the documents appeared likely to be located primarily in Social Security Administration offices in New Jersey. The court also noted that some records might be in New York.

For the Federal Tort Claims Act claims, venue may be proper where the plaintiff resides or where the complained-of act or omission occurred. The court found New Jersey to be a proper venue because Ferrera Parra resided there and most of the alleged events appeared to have occurred there. The court noted that some events might have occurred in the Southern District of New York as well.

Transfer decision

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 doing so would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court determined that the District of New Jersey was a proper venue for all of Ferrera Parra’s claims and appeared to be more convenient. The court relied on Ferrera Parra’s residence there, the apparent location of a substantial portion of the events there, and the expected location of most relevant documents and witnesses there.

Disposition

Judge Swain directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The court did not decide whether Ferrera Parra could proceed without prepaying fees or whether he was entitled to relief on his claims; the receiving court was to decide those matters and his pending requests. The Southern District of New York closed the action, terminated the pending motions on its docket, and directed that summonses not issue from that court. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.