Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2: Judge Swain denied Ferrera Parra’s motion challenging the transfer of his case to New Jersey.
Ravel Ferrera Parra, whose motion was denied and whose action remained transferred to the federal court in the District of New Jersey.
What happened
In Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2, the court had transferred Ferrera Parra’s claims involving Social Security benefits, federal agencies, records, and damages to the federal court in New Jersey. Ferrera Parra then asked the court to reconsider or clarify that transfer.
The court rejected his argument that the complaint did not include Social Security and Federal Tort Claims Act claims. It also explained that New Jersey remained the proper or more convenient location for the claims, even if the complaint asserted only claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the motion under the local reconsideration rule and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- Ferrera Parra v. Social Security Administration Region 2 · No. 1:25-cv-04456
- Laura Swain
- June 9, 2025
Background
On June 4, 2025, the court construed Ravel Ferrera Parra’s complaint as asserting claims under the Social Security Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court transferred the entire action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It determined that New Jersey was the proper venue for the Social Security claims and the most appropriate venue for the claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Ferrera Parra, who was litigating without a lawyer, later filed a motion for “reconsideration and clarification” under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The court treated the filing as a request for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and as a request for relief from the earlier order under Rule 60(b).
Court’s analysis
For reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3, a party must show that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters that had already been presented. The court concluded that Ferrera Parra had not made that showing. It reaffirmed that his complaint sought relief under the Social Security Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, in addition to the Administrative Procedure Act and the Freedom of Information Act. The court also stated that New Jersey remained the proper venue for the Social Security claims and the most appropriate venue for the other claims because Ferrera Parra resides in that district and the alleged events, documents, and witnesses were substantially connected to it.
The court also denied relief under Rule 60(b)(1) through (5), finding that Ferrera Parra had not shown that any of those grounds applied. It denied relief under Rule 60(b)(6) as well because he had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
Ruling and effect
The court denied the motion in its entirety, leaving the June 4, 2025 transfer order in place. The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on June 9, 2025.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.