Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 14, 2025

Elmilligy v. Mount Olive Township

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05590
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureSection 1983Pro Se
In one sentence

In Elmilligy v. Mount Olive Township, Chief Judge Swain transferred the pro se civil-rights case to New Jersey because venue was improper in New York.

Who this affects

Mahmoud Elmilligy and the named and unnamed defendants; the case will proceed, if at all, in the District of New Jersey.

What happened

Elmilligy v. Mount Olive Township is a civil-rights lawsuit brought by Mahmoud Elmilligy without a lawyer under a federal civil-rights law. He named New Jersey government entities and individuals as defendants and alleged events in New Jersey and Colombia.

The court concluded that venue—the proper federal court location—was not in the Southern District of New York. Because the claims primarily arose in New Jersey, the court transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer and closed the Southern District of New York case. The New Jersey court will decide whether Elmilligy may proceed without paying fees and will rule on his requests for a temporary restraining order, protective orders, and sealing of a supplemental declaration. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Elmilligy v. Mount Olive Township · No. 1:25-cv-05590
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 14, 2025

Background

Mahmoud Elmilligy filed this lawsuit without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for violations of constitutional rights by people acting under state law. He alleged that defendants violated his rights in New Jersey and Colombia. The defendants included Mount Olive Township; the Mount Olive Police Department; county prosecutor’s offices; New Jersey child-protection agencies; the City of Elizabeth, New Jersey; several individuals; and unnamed defendants.

Elmilligy alleged that beginning in May 2023 he was subjected to harassment, retaliation, and civil-rights violations after trying to report child abuse and misconduct by family members. He also alleged that he was kidnapped and tortured in Colombia between September 21 and October 21, 2024. On the same date, he filed a related complaint in the District of New Jersey, which the opinion identifies as No. 2:25-CV-12720 (EP) (CLW).

Venue Analysis

Venue is the federal court district where a civil case may properly be heard. The court explained that federal law generally permits a civil action where all defendants reside in the same state, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if neither applies, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.

Elmilligy did not allege the defendants’ residences. The court stated that several defendants were New Jersey residents and that the alleged events occurred in New Jersey and Colombia. Based on the complaint, the court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. It determined that the claims primarily arose in New Jersey and that venue therefore lay in the District of New Jersey.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, a federal court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, when the interests of justice favor that result, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The order states that the Southern District of New York case was closed.

The court did not decide the merits of Elmilligy’s civil-rights allegations. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether he could proceed without prepaying fees. It also directed that rulings on his motion for a temporary restraining order, motions for protective orders, and motion to seal a supplemental declaration be made by the transferee court, and directed the Clerk to terminate those motions in this court. No summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal from the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.