Johnson v. Sales

Background

Sterling L. Johnson brought this pro se action, meaning he was proceeding without a lawyer, in the Southern District of New York. He used the court's form complaint for non-prisoner claims involving federal constitutional violations, but he did not specify which claims he was bringing. He sued Cellular Sales and Alex McCann. The complaint sought unspecified relief for allegedly tracking him on social media and giving out a second phone.

The opinion says Johnson appeared to be undergoing treatment at Bellevue Hospital in New York. It also notes that he had not signed the complaint, paid the filing fees, or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying those fees. The court did not decide those issues; it stated that the court receiving the transferred case would determine whether Johnson could proceed without prepayment of fees.

Venue analysis

Venue is the proper federal district for a case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue generally may be proper where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in some circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court's authority.

Johnson did not specify where the defendants resided or where the alleged events occurred. But an invoice attached to the complaint appeared to indicate that Cellular Sales of Illinois LLC was located in Peoria, Illinois, and that McCann sold items to Johnson at that Peoria location on May 6, 2025. Peoria County is within the Central District of Illinois. The court therefore concluded that the Central District of Illinois was clearly a proper venue based on where a substantial part of the events appeared to have occurred. The court found no indication that either defendant resided in New York and said it was unclear whether the Southern District of New York was a proper venue.

Transfer and disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a civil action to another federal district where the case could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of justice. The court reasoned that relevant documents and witnesses would likely be in the Central District of Illinois because the alleged events appeared to have occurred there.

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. The order closed the action in the Southern District of New York, and summonses were not to issue from that court. The court did not resolve the unspecified underlying claims. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.