Dixon v. NYCHA - New York City Housing Authority

Background

Claude Dixon filed this action without a lawyer and purported to invoke the court’s authority over disputes involving citizens of different states. He named the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), which the opinion describes as a public benefit corporation, and “NICER – Retirement System,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS), a municipal public employee retirement system.

The complaint appeared to include allegations that someone using Dixon’s stolen personal information from NYCHA stole his pension checks from NYCERS. The court understood the alleged events to have occurred in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Although multiple individuals were listed as plaintiffs in the complaint’s caption, the court treated Claude Dixon as the only plaintiff because he alone signed the complaint and submitted a completed, signed application to proceed without prepaying fees.

Venue and Transfer

Federal law generally permits a civil case to be filed 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. The court concluded that NYCHA appeared to reside in both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York for venue purposes. Dixon alleged that NYCERS had its principal place of business in Brooklyn, which is in the Eastern District.

The court therefore found that both districts appeared to be proper venues under the provision concerning where defendants reside. It was unclear whether the Southern District was proper under the separate provision concerning where the events occurred, but the Eastern District clearly was proper because Dixon appeared to allege that much or all of the events, including the alleged theft of his pension checks, occurred in Brooklyn.

Even when the original venue is proper, federal law permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court reasoned that the Eastern District would be more convenient because relevant documents and witnesses would reasonably be expected to be located there.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It did not decide the merits of Dixon’s allegations. The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Dixon could continue without prepaying fees. Summonses were not to issue from the Southern District, and the order closed the action in that court.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion separately noted that Dixon appeared to ask about Social Security benefits, but the court expressed no view on the venue or merits of any future action seeking review of a final Social Security administrative decision.