Dubose v. City Of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06906
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dubose v. City of New York, Judge Swain transferred the pro se action from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District.
Jerrold Eugene Dubose and the defendants, including the 75th Precinct of the New York City Police Department and “Brooklyn Methodist.” The action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York, which would decide whether Dubose could proceed without prepaying filing fees.
What happened
In Jerrold Eugene Dubose v. City of New York, et al., Jerrold Eugene Dubose, representing himself, sued the 75th Precinct of the New York City Police Department, “Brooklyn Methodist,” and others. He alleged that he was detained at the precinct in Brooklyn over a desk appearance ticket and was assaulted, medicated, shackled, and made to drink water from a toilet.
The court explained that the events described occurred in Kings County, which is in the Eastern District of New York. It found that venue was proper there based on where the events occurred, while it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District because Dubose did not provide facts about where the defendants lived.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the Eastern District of New York because the events, plaintiff, and several defendants were connected to Kings County, making that district appear more convenient. The Southern District case was closed, no summons would issue there, and the transferee court would decide whether Dubose could proceed without paying filing fees; the court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Dubose v. City Of New York · No. 1:25-cv-06906
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 26, 2025
Background
Jerrold Eugene Dubose brought this action without a lawyer against the 75th Precinct of the New York City Police Department, “Brooklyn Methodist,” and others. He alleged that he was detained at the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn for violating a desk appearance ticket. He stated that he was “assaulted & medicated shackled” and that he “was drinking water from the toilet.”
Venue and Transfer Analysis
The court applied the federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It explained that a civil action may generally 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 determined that the alleged events occurred in Brooklyn, New York, in Kings County, which is part of the Eastern District of New York. Because the claims arose there, venue was proper in the Eastern District under Section 1391(b)(2). Dubose did not allege that any events occurred in the Southern District of New York, so venue did not appear proper there under that provision. The court also said it was unclear whether venue was proper in the Southern District based on the defendants’ residences because Dubose had not alleged where they lived.
The court further applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows a court to transfer a case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. It concluded that transfer appeared appropriate because the events occurred in Kings County, Dubose and several defendants resided there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, and a summons was not to issue from that court. The court left the question whether Dubose could continue without prepaying filing fees to the transferee court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The action was transferred to the Eastern District of New York. The order did not decide the merits of Dubose’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.