Hardy v. LexisNexis
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04716
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hardy v. LexisNexis, Judge Swain transferred Hardy’s case to the Eastern District of New York because venue was improper in the Southern District.
Damion Hardy and the defendants 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 Hardy may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Hardy v. LexisNexis, Damion Hardy, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued LexisNexis and numerous other defendants under a civil-rights statute. His claims arose from his 2004 arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport and his later federal prosecution.
The court said the Southern District of New York was not the proper location because the defendants did not all reside in New York and the events described occurred in Queens County and Kings County. Because those counties are in the Eastern District of New York, the court transferred the case there in the interest of justice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to transfer the action, said the Eastern District would decide whether Hardy could proceed without paying filing fees, and ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District. The order closed the case in that court and denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Hardy v. LexisNexis · No. 1:25-cv-04716
- Laura Swain
- June 13, 2025
Background
Damion Hardy, who is incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint arose from Hardy’s 2004 arrest at John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens County, New York, and his subsequent federal prosecution in the Eastern District of New York. The defendants included LexisNexis, the United States, Matthew Bender and Company, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the United States Military, judges, criminal defense lawyers, and unidentified individuals.
Venue Analysis
“Venue” is the proper federal district for a case. The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which generally permits a civil action where defendants reside, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court’s authority. The court noted that Hardy did not allege the defendants’ residences and that the complaint named defendants who did not reside in New York State. It concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York.
The court determined that the claims arose in Queens and Brooklyn. Because those locations are within the Eastern District of New York, the court concluded that venue was proper there under Section 1391(b)(2). 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.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It directed that the transferee court decide whether Hardy could proceed without prepaying fees. The court also ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District and stated that the order closed the case in that court. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.